GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS, INC v. IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Part-I
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS, INC v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS, INC v. </b><b<br /> >IRVINE</b><b<br /> > UNIFIED </b><b<br /> >SCHOOL<br /> DISTRICT</b><b ></b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/31/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN<br /> THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>FOURTH<br /> APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION<br /> THREE<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>GREAT WEST CONTRACTORS, INC.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IRVINE<br /> UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendant and Respondent.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> G041688<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008 00107122)<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> O P I N I O N <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Appeal from a judgment<br /> of the Superior Court<br /> of Orange<br /> County, Sheila Fell, Judge. Reversed<br /> and remanded.<br /> <br/> Pitre & Teunisse,<br /> Patricia A. Teunisse and Carole M. Pitre for Plaintiff and Appellant.<br /> <br/> Bergman & Dacey,<br /> Gregory M. Bergman, John P. Dacey and Benjamin A. Shapiro for Defendant and<br /> Respondent.<br /> <br/>* * *<br /> <br/>I. THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS CASE<br /> <br/> This case is important<br /> for two reasons. First, it presents a<br /> challenging problem in public contracting law: <br /> How to distinguish a â€