6/11/2023 0 Comments Minco construction![]() 11.) The proposed terms of the debarment conformed with Labor Code section 1777.1(d) and stated: ![]() Within its Post-Writ Statement of Decision, Respondent concluded that Petitioners had violated Labor Code section 1777.14(d)’s apprenticeship requirements and decided that a one-year period of debarment was an appropriate penalty. ![]() Petitioners contend that Respondent has failed to comply with the peremptory writ and exceeded its debarment authority.īefore Respondent issued its Post-Writ Decision re: Debarment became effective on Septem(the “Effective Debarment Date”), Petitioners were awarded the following public works contracts: (1) “The OC-88 Fire Protection System Upgrades/ awarded by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California/ bid on / awarded on / DIR Project ID 383098 ” (2) “The VPS Elevator Repairs on the Office of Exposition Park Management / awarded 16 by the Department of General Services / bid on / awarded on / DIR ID not yet registered ” and (3) “The On-Call Pavement Works / awarded by the City of Beverly Hills / bid on 8/24/21 / awarded on / DIR Project ID 389652.” (Mina Decl. ) “The third method, allowing the court to order compliance, is the least severe and thus only requires that a court find that such an order is necessary and proper under the circumstances.” ( King, supra, at 577-578.) City of Los Angeles (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 91, 95.) Section 1097 “authorizes three methods by which a court may enforce a peremptory writ of mandate: (1) a court may impose a fine not exceeding $1,000 (2) a court may order the disobedient party to be imprisoned until the writ is obeyed and (3) a court may make any order necessary and proper to enforce the writ.” ( King v. The court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce a peremptory writ of mandate. The court has received Respondent’s opposition and Petitioner’s reply. On Decemthe court denied Petitioner’s ex parte application to enforce the writ, and set the mater for hearing. On August 27, 2021, Respondent filed a return to the writ, which states that, after reconsidering the matter in light of the court’s ruling, Respondent imposed a one-year debarment on Petitioners. The court issued a writ directing Respondent to set aside the decision re: debarment dated May 16, 2019, and to reconsider the decision in light of the court’s ruling. On June 14, 2021, the court entered judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate. ![]() The parties submitted, without argument, on the court’s tentative ruling to grant the writ petition in part. On May 11, 2021, the writ petition came for hearing before the court. ![]() Petitioners Minako America Corporation dba Minco Construction (“Minco”) and Refaat Hilmay Mina (collectively “Petitioners”) move for an order compelling Respondent California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“Respondent” or “DLSE”) to: (1) abide by the court’s peremptory writ of mandamus (2) restore Petitioners’ registration as to all public works projects bid and awarded before the effective debarment date of Septem(3) prevent Respondent from advising that Petitioners are precluded on working as a contractor in public works that Petitioners were awarded prior to Septemand (4) issue a revised debarment order that states Petitioners are not prohibited from working as a contractor on public works based on contracts awarded prior to September 27, 2021. Tentative Decision on Motion to Enforce Peremptory Writ of Mandamus: DENIED Minako America Corporation dba Minco Construction, et al.,Ĭalifornia Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, et al. Case Number: *******2356 Hearing Date: FebruDept: 82 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |