Private Attorney General: Plaintiff’s Successful Injunction Against Public Agency Contract Bidding Process Did Not Justify CCP § 1021.5 Fee Recovery Plaintiff, Although Successful, Had Too Much Financial Incentive In Obtaining The Expensive Contract

Plaintiff, Although Successful, Had Too Much Financial Incentive In Obtaining The Expensive Contract Job Or In Obtaining A Re-Bid Of The Project.

            In West Coast Air Conditioning Co., Inc. v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. D071611 (4^th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 22, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff wanted to obtain the bid of a contract to update the Ironwood State Prison’s HVC system from CDCR, bidding about $98 million (versus contractor HP’s $88 million bid).  Plaintiff challenged the contract award to HP by filing mandate seeking injunctive relief and also seeking promissory estoppel relief.  The trial judge set aside the HP contract award based on math errors and gave serious thought to awarding the project to plaintiff, but found that she could not fashion this type of relief.  However, the lower court did award plaintiff $250,000 in bid preparation costs under the promissory estoppel claim.  Plaintiff then sought about $140,000 in § 1021.5 fees, a request denied by the trial judge.

            The 4/1 DCA affirmed.

          Under Conservatorship of Whitley, 50 Cal.4^th 1206, 1215 (2010) [our Leading Case No. 14], it was necessary for plaintiff to show that claimant’s legal victory transcended its personal interest from a financial stakes perspective.  Plaintiff could not satisfy this element, given that is obviously had a big financial interest in a close to $100 million project for which it wanted an award of the contract for the work.