Arntz Builders v. City of >Berkeley>























Filed 1/23/13 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

A128147 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG03095394)

This
litigation arises out of a contract between Arntz Builders (Arntz) and the City
of Berkeley (the City) for the
restoration and expansion of the Berkeley Central Library. In the operative complaint, Arntz alleged
against the City causes of action for breach
of contract, breach of contract due to subcontractor pass-through or
indirect claims, and breach of implied duty to provide complete and accurate
plans. After prolonged litigation, which
included two prior appeals (Arntz
Builders v. City of Berkeley (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 276 (>Arntz I) and Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley (Aug. 25, 2008, A117744 [nonpub. opn.] (>Arntz II)), the trial court granted the
City’s motion for summary judgment.
Arntz appealed the ensuing judgment, and today, in Arntz Builders v. City of Berkeley, case No. A126838 (>Arntz III), we reverse the trial court’s
judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings. We incorporate by reference our discussion of
the factual and procedural background set forth in Arntz III.

Following
entry of judgment, the City moved for attorney fees as the prevailing party
under Public Contract Code section 7107, subdivision (f), and the trial court
granted the motion in part, awarding fees in the amount of $1,290,063.75. In the matter now before us, Arntz appeals
that award of fees. Our reversal of the
trial court’s judgment in favor of the City in Arntz III eliminates the basis for the award. Accordingly, we must vacate the attorney fee
order as well. (Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2000) 80
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1436-1437.)

>DISPOSITION

The
order appealed from is reversed.





_________________________

RIVERA,
J.





We concur:





_________________________

RUVOLO, P.J.





_________________________

REARDON, J.