This year, Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes ventured into the appellate realm more often than usual and met with success in several cases.

The First District Court of Appeal recently held that Public Contract Code sections 5101 and 5103 provide relief only for errors in general contractors’ bids. In Diede Construction, Inc. v. Monterey Mechanical Co., Diede relied on Monterey Mechanical’s subcontractor bid in formulating its successful bid to the City of Livermore. Monterey Mechanical found an error in its bid and notified Diede within the five-day period of section 5103, urging Diede to withdraw its bid under that section. Instead, Diede signed the contract with the city, and, when Monterey Mechanical wouldn’t perform, found another subcontractor. Diede then sought to recover the additional costs it incurred under Drennan v. Star Paving. The trial court held that Diede could not recover the additional costs because it could have sought relief under sections 5101 and 5103 based on Monterey Mechanical’s error. In the appeal, BR&H submitted an amicus curie brief on behalf of Construction Employers Association arguing that the language of the statute and public policy both required that relief under section 5101 and 5103 be limited to errors in the general contractor’s bid. The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the trial court’s decision.

BR&H was also successful in Arntz Builders v. Superior Court (County of Contra Costa). In that case, Arntz requested that its action against Contra Costa County be transferred from the Contra Costa Superior Court to a neutral county under Code of Civil Procedure section 394, which provides for such transfers in actions involving a public entity. The County argued, and the trial court ruled, that a clause in the contract between Arntz and the County established venue, and that Arntz had waived its rights under section 394. BR&H filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate on behalf of Arntz Builders, and the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court decision. The justices held that the contract provision waiving Arntz’s right to transfer venue was invalid, and ordered the Contra Costa County court to transfer the action to a neutral county.

Finally, in a non-construction related case, BR&H obtained reversal of a jury verdict in Data Communications Professionals v. Pacific Bell Network Integration, et al. In that case, the Court of Appeal decided in favor of our client Data Communications, reversing the jury verdict due to an error in the jury instructions given by the trial judge.