Plaintiff, computer corporation, appealed the judgment from the Superior Court.

Posted by laura dern on April 5th, 2021

Plaintiff, computer corporation, appealed the judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which denied plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate to the trial court to prevent defendant, the City of Los Angeles, from entering into a contract with intervenor, rival computer corporation, or any other party than itself.

Plaintiff, computer corporation, and intervenor, rival computer corporation, entered bids to perform a public works project for defendant, the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff submitted the lower bid. However, defendant gave the project to intervenor because plaintiff failed to submit documentation that it had complied with an affirmative action program. Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandate preventing defendant from entering into the contract. The trial court denied the petition, but the court of appeal reversed and remanded. What Is a Class Action Lawsuit The program exceeded defendant's charter and was void. The charter specifically stated that projects had to be given to the lowest and best responsible bidder. The failure to submit documentation did not make plaintiff's bid nonresponsive. The examples provided by defendant were cases were the charter specifically required compliance with its provisions. Rejection for nondisclosure of compliance with the program was not in the charter. Defendant could not link the case through the general police power sections of the charter because the specific statutory language in the charter concerning bids controlled over the general language.

The court of appeal reversed and remanded the judgment of the trial court which denied plaintiff, computer corporation, a writ of mandate to prevent defendant, the City of Los Angeles, from entering into a contract with intervenor, rival computer corporation, after plaintiff entered the lowest bid for the contract. The affirmative action program on which defendant based its decision violated defendant's city charter and was void.

Appellant petitioner sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied his petition for mandamus to compel respondent Board of Medical Examiners to restore his license to practice medicine and surgery.

The petitioner's medical license had been revoked because of he was convicted of a felony. He sought restoration of his license, but the Board rejected his application. In his mandamus action, the petitioner alleged that the Board had acted arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion when it denied his application. He contended that he was entitled to a trial de novo on judicial review of the Board's decision. On appeal, the court concluded that the superior court was limited to a determination of whether the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(c). It found that the petitioner had received a fair hearing before the superior court, which had studied the Board's record in the light of the petitioner's contentions. In considering the petitioner's evidence as a whole, the court found that the Board had not abused its discretion in finding that he had not affirmatively shown rehabilitation. The petitioner had not found employment or volunteered his services during the war. He had engaged in playing cards, going to the beach and the races, and making business trips involving his mining and other interests.

The court affirmed the judgment of the superior court.