Hoffman v. Riverside City School District

California Court of Appeal

Hoffman v. Riverside City School District

210 Cal. App. 2d 78, 26 Cal. Rptr. 113, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1545

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 21, 1962

DocketCiv. 6894

StatusPublished

This text of 210 Cal. App. 2d 78 (Hoffman v. Riverside City School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoffman v. Riverside City School District, 210 Cal. App. 2d 78, 26 Cal. Rptr. 113, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1545 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPARD, J.—

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal after demurrer sustained.

Facts

This cause comes to us as one of four appeals respecting which the parties have stated by stipulation in writing filed with this court that “the matters of law and fact are similar in all four cases” and that therefore the four cases may be consolidated for purposes of appeal and for briefs.

*79 By Ms amended complaint plaintiff sets forth his taxpayer status and that at all times mentioned he was a delegate and member of the Bmlding and Construction Trades Council of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, an association of a number of labor unions, parties to certain collective bargaining agreements by which applicable wage rates were established and were accepted for federal public works in the Riverside community; (in his brief to this court he claims standing to sue as such labor representative); the political entity of defendant school district; names the school trustees as defendants, and states their control over defendant district; that on January 20,1961, defendants published a notice calling for bids for certain school construction; and states that in said notice is set forth the prevailing wage rate per hour for the trades and workers used in said construction, which rate is identical with the rate set forth in the collective bargaining agreements above referred to but that certain additional benefits contained in said collective bargaining agreement were not taken into consideration by defendant’s board of trustees.

Plaintiff prays for injunctive relief to prevent the expenditure of any public funds on account of the construction contract on the alleged ground that said contract is void due to the defendant’s error in failing to include said fringe benefits in its prevailing wage determination and published notice.

By the amended complaint there is no allegation that a copy of said collective bargaining agreements or any of them was ever filed with the Director of Industrial Relations. There is no allegation that said agreements were ever called to the attention of defendant’s board of trustees. There is no allegation that plaintiff or anyone ever approached defendant’s board of trustees to ask a revision of the wage rate or ever suggested to the board that such wage rate was in error in any particular. There is no allegation that plaintiff, or anyone, filed a petition with the Director of Industrial Relations to correct said wage rate as is provided by Labor Code section 1773.4.

For the reasons set forth in Hoffman v. Pedley School District, No. 6872, ante, p. 72 [26 Cal.Rptr. 109] filed this day, the judgment is affirmed.

Griffin, P. J., and Coughlin, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 16, 1963.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHEPARD, J.—

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of dismissal after demurrer sustained.

Facts

This cause comes to us as one of four appeals respecting which the parties have stated by stipulation in writing filed with this court that “the matters of law and fact are similar in all four cases” and that therefore the four cases may be consolidated for purposes of appeal and for briefs.

*79 By Ms amended complaint plaintiff sets forth his taxpayer status and that at all times mentioned he was a delegate and member of the Bmlding and Construction Trades Council of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, an association of a number of labor unions, parties to certain collective bargaining agreements by which applicable wage rates were established and were accepted for federal public works in the Riverside community; (in his brief to this court he claims standing to sue as such labor representative); the political entity of defendant school district; names the school trustees as defendants, and states their control over defendant district; that on January 20,1961, defendants published a notice calling for bids for certain school construction; and states that in said notice is set forth the prevailing wage rate per hour for the trades and workers used in said construction, which rate is identical with the rate set forth in the collective bargaining agreements above referred to but that certain additional benefits contained in said collective bargaining agreement were not taken into consideration by defendant’s board of trustees.

Plaintiff prays for injunctive relief to prevent the expenditure of any public funds on account of the construction contract on the alleged ground that said contract is void due to the defendant’s error in failing to include said fringe benefits in its prevailing wage determination and published notice.

By the amended complaint there is no allegation that a copy of said collective bargaining agreements or any of them was ever filed with the Director of Industrial Relations. There is no allegation that said agreements were ever called to the attention of defendant’s board of trustees. There is no allegation that plaintiff or anyone ever approached defendant’s board of trustees to ask a revision of the wage rate or ever suggested to the board that such wage rate was in error in any particular. There is no allegation that plaintiff, or anyone, filed a petition with the Director of Industrial Relations to correct said wage rate as is provided by Labor Code section 1773.4.

For the reasons set forth in Hoffman v. Pedley School District, No. 6872, ante, p. 72 [26 Cal.Rptr. 109] filed this day, the judgment is affirmed.

Griffin, P. J., and Coughlin, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 16, 1963.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 Cal. App. 2d 78, 26 Cal. Rptr. 113, 1962 Cal. App. LEXIS 1545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-riverside-city-school-district-calctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack