BakerValley Unif. School Dist. v. Super. Ct.
Filed 12/26/08 Baker Valley Unif. School Dist. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
BAKER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; DELIDDO & ASSOCIATES, INC. et al., Real Party in Interest. | E046840 (Super.Ct.No. CIVBS800353) OPINION |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Kirtland L. Mahlum, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, 21.) Petition granted.
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Matt J. Steiner, Joseph M. Rossini, and Jennifer D. Cantrell for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Gianelli and Associates, Brett L. Dickerson, Nini T. Lee, and Keric J. Cushing for Real Party in Interest.
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the opposition filed by real party in interest, and the reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
Although the exact nature of petitioners defenses to the causes of action based on express contract are not clear at this early stage of the proceedings, we are satisfied that real party in interest has failed to state any viable claim for recovery under a theory of quantum meruit.
First, in general, quantum meruit is not available where there is a valid contract between the plaintiff and defendant, because the remedy serves to ameliorate possible injustice where services are rendered or a benefit conferred in the absence of a valid contract. The two theories of recovery are essentially inconsistent. (See Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First Alliance Mortgage Co. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1410.) Next, in a rule specific to public entities, there can be no recover in quantum meruitif there is no valid contract. (Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83; Katsura v. City of San Buenaventura (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 104.) This rule has been found necessary to prevent evasion of the statutes governing the awarding of public contracts, specifically competitive bidding.
Thus, real party in interest stands between a rock and a hard place. We see no reason why the general rule set out in Miller v. McKinnon, supra, 20 Cal.2d 83 should not apply as well to invalidating irregularities in the letting of energy services contracts other than competitive bidding lapses; the entire point is that all public contracts are subject to limiting regulation intended to ensure that the contracts are fair, in the public interest, and are awarded without fraud or corruption. If it is a fact that the contract real party in interest describes in other causes of action is not valid, recovery cannot be permitted in quantum meruit.
Real party in interests response suggests that the true problem, from real party in interests position, is that the contract contained a provision either limiting or cancelling petitioners obligation to pay for the work done if specified energy savings did not materialize. But, contrary to real party in interests arguments, the statutes (e.g.,Gov. Code, 4217.12, 4217.13) do not require such allegedly unreasonable conditions in any contract. The law only requires that before a public entity awards such a contract, it must find that there will be anticipated savings. If the public entity chooses to insist that the contractor agree to forfeit payment if the energy savings are not realized, the contractor is free to decline the contract as unreasonable and too risky. What the contractor cannot do, in our view, is enter into a valid but onerous contract and then, when it fails to perform, resort to quantum meruit.
In short, if there is no valid contract, real party in interest cannot recover in quantum meruit pursuant to the well-established rule of Miller v. McKinnon, supra, 20 Cal.2d 83. If there is a valid contract, real party in interest is bound by its terms and cannot recover outside the contract.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the trial court erred in overruling petitioners demurrer to that cause of action, and we grant the petition.
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to vacate its order overruling petitioners demurrer to the quantum meruit cause of action, and to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer in that respect.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
Each party shall bear their own costs.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
GAUT
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.
