Ramirez, Leal & Company v. City Demonstration Agency

On Petition for Rehearing

OPINION

Part V. of our opinion, filed on October 1, 1976, is withdrawn, and in its place the following is substituted:

V. It was error to grant, as an alternative, a summary judgment for defendants on the merits.

In its “Decision and Order,” the trial court first concluded that “neither 42 U.S.C. 3301 et seq., 12 U.S.C. 1701(u), nor the CDA letters require the City to contract ‘to the greatest extent feasible’ with business concerns located in the neighborhood area. The City is contractually required by the Grant Agreement to ensure such preferential treatment in contract awards, but plaintiff lacks standing to enforce this Grant Agreement.” The court then stated:

The Court then proceeded to review the evidence and conclude that summary judgment should be rendered for defendants. In doing so, however, the court applied a wrong legal standard. It summarized its views as follows:

The statute, contrary to the views of the trial court, does require award of the contract in issue, “to the greatest extent feasible,” to Ramirez. This language clearly requires more than the trial court seems to think that it does. It is not enough that Ramirez was given a…