McIntosh

McIntosh v. Aubry

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 4th 1576·18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 451·93 Daily Journal DAR 4836·1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1624
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 1993A057602California6,791 words

Opinion

Opinion

Smith, J.

Class action plaintiffs engaged in the construction of a residential care facility (the Helicon Project) in Riverside County (the County) petitioned the superior court for writ of mandate against a decision by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (the Director) that the project was not a “public works” project under Labor Code section 1720 or 1720.2 of the prevailing wage law. "Hie court denied relief, finding no abuse of discretion and giving judgment for the Director, his agency (the DIR) and real parties in interest, the latter being the County and various corporate entities involved in the project. Plaintiffs appeal the judgment. We affirm.

Background

The Helicon Project grew out of County efforts to find a qualified, privately run residential shelter care facility to shelter and treat disturbed or abused minors under its charge. Lacking a facility of its own, the County had previously placed such minors in residential foster homes.

The County in 1988 put out a request for proposals (RFP) describing its facility/program requirements and offering four alternatives. One was for bidders to build facilities, at no cost to the County, on land leased…

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.