Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley
Filed 8/25/08 Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
ARNTZ BUILDERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF BERKELEY, Defendant and Respondent. | A117744 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG03095394) |
This litigation arises from the parties construction contract involving the renovation of the Berkeley Central Library. In the underlying litigation, Arntz Builders (Arntz) filed a complaint against the City of Berkeley (City) for breach of contract. A court trial ensued on whether Arntz complied with any applicable Government Code claim requirements. The trial court ruled that Arntz was required to present a Government Code section 910 claim in addition to complying with any contract claims procedures, and that it had failed to present a timely section 910 claim. Arntz appealed. Today, we reverse the trial courts judgment (Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley (August 25, 2008, A116078) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, ___ [p. 28] (Arntz I)), concluding that the contracts claims procedure exclusively governed the claims to which it applied and that it did not require Arntz to file a statutory claim for disputed amounts exceeding $375,000 (Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley (August 25, 2008, A116078) pp. 17, 27-28 [nonpub. part of partial pub. opn.].) Accordingly, in this related appeal, we reverse the trial courts award of attorney fees.
We incorporate by reference our discussion of the factual and procedural background set forth in the opinion in the underlying litigation. (Arntz I, supra, ___ Cal.App.4th at pp. ___ [pp. 2-8].) Following the trial courts entry of judgment against Arntz in that litigation, the City moved for an award of attorney fees under Public Contract Code section 7107, subdivision (f).[1] The trial court granted the Citys request in part, awarding the City $750,000.
Arntz appeals the trial courts award of fees. Our reversal of the trial courts judgment in favor of the City requires us to vacate the attorney fee award as well. (Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1436-1437.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed.
________________________
RIVERA, J.
We concur:
___________________________
RUVOLO, P.J.
___________________________
REARDON, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Subdivision (f) of Public Contract Code section 7107 provides for an award of attorney fees in any action for the collection of retention proceeds wrongfully withheld by a public entity or contractor.
