Arnold

Arnold v. California Exposition & State Fair

Caution
125 Cal. App. 4th 498·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2250·2005 Daily Journal DAR 9·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 28
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 29, 2004C045353California4,245 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

In this appeal, Lloyd Arnold, a former harness operator at the California Exposition and State Fair (Cal Expo) seeks another spin around the track. He appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of mandate and from the denial of his motions for reconsideration and for attorney fees. In his petition, Arnold sought to have Cal Expo and the Department of General Services (DGS) vacate two one-year operator extensions Cal Expo had granted Capitol Racing, LLC (Capitol), and solicit competitive bids for the operation. After Arnold filed his petition, Cal Expo concluded it had mistakenly provided the extensions, and vacated them. Thereafter, Cal Expo and Capitol entered into a new two-year operating agreement.

On appeal, Arnold contends (1) a harness racing contract is a public services contract subject to competitive bidding; (2) Cal Expo and DGS violated legal duties by failing to evaluate the economic terms of the former contract with Capitol; and (3) he is entitled to attorney fees under the private attorney general theory of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. We disagree and affirm the judgment denying his petition. We conclude that a harness racing contract—in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.