Greystone Homes v. Cake

<html> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <title>Filed 11/22/05; pub</title> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Filed 11/22/05; pub. order 12/21/05 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'> <tr> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border:none;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> GREYSTONE HOMES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHUCK CAKE, as Acting Director, etc., et al. Defendants and Respondents; </td> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> A107763 A107769 (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSN 03-1234) </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> PLEASANT HILL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Defendant and Appellant. </td> <td width=319 valign=top style='width:239.4pt;border:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'> </td> </tr> </table> I. INTRODUCTION The question <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">presented by this appeal is whether a project</a> to build a housing development in Pleasant Hill constituted a public work <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">subject to California's Prevailing Wage Law (PWL).</a><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> Both the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and the lower court found that the project was a public work. The Developer, Greystone Homes, Inc. (Greystone), and the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency (the Agency) disagree and have filed separate appeals from a <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">judgment</a> denying Greystone's petition for writ of mandate. This court consolidated the two appeals. Respondents are the DIR, the Acting Director of the DIR at the relevant time, Chuck Cake (the Director), and four labor organizations who obtained the public work <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">determination</a> from the Director in this case (the Union respondents). We hold that the project at issue was not a public work and, therefore, reverse the judgment. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Redevelopment Project The Agency solicited proposals from interested parties to redevelop the â€