Candido Marez v. Steven Bassett

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 18, 201008-56035California3,695 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

On this appeal, the question addressed is whether, as appel- lant Candido Marez contends, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants was in error. Candido Marez (“Marez” or “plaintiff”) was the owner of Montrose Supply, a vendor of a wide variety of products to the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Ange- les (“DWP”), from the late 1980s until 2007, when he sold the business. In 2006, plaintiff, proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, sued DWP in the Central District of California, alleg- ing that the agency had violated the First Amendment by engaging in adverse action against him because of his public criticism of DWP’s procurement procedures. MAREZ v. BASSETT 2611 A. The Procurement Process

In order to procure the broad range of goods it needs, DWP relies on small and large vendors. Prior to 2004, DWP awarded contracts through two distinct processes. The first process used “Subpurchase Orders” (“SPOs”), which permit- ted suppliers to sell small quantities of products directly to DWP purchasing personnel known as “storekeepers.” Individ- ual storekeepers awarded these small contracts at their…

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.