Dorsey v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal May 4, 1955 No. Civ. 20865Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the city's contract with an independent engineering firm was lawful because the services were special in character and temporary in nature, falling within legitimate exceptions to the city's civil service charter provisions.

Issues

Whether the city's contract for engineering services violated the city charter's civil service requirements.
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment when the plaintiff failed to controvert the defendant's affidavits.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it appears from the affidavits that the engineering services here under consideration are special in character and temporary in nature, and come within legitimate exceptions to civil service in the charter of the city of Los Angeles.”

“It follows, therefore, that in the circumstances of this case the Koebig contract was within the powers of the city government, and was not unlawful.”

DRAPEAU, J.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment under the provisions of section 437e of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In 1952 it became apparent to the governing bodies of the county of Los Angeles, and of the city of Los Angeles, that there was immediate need for adequate storm drains to protect homes, schools, and highways from flood waters. During rainstorms in that year accumulated surface waters caused great damage in the city and in the county. Drainage facilities were inadequate to conduct such waters rapidly to flood channels. Consequently the electorate of the area approved a bond issue of $179,000,000 to remedy the condition, and to be expended under the direction of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District.

In 1953 the flood control district and the city of Los Angeles entered into a contract whereby the city agreed to provide plans and specifications for 53 flood control projects within the city. The estimated cost of $75,975,100 was to he paid to the city by the flood control district. By the terms of the contract the chief engineer of the flood control district

[718]

was to retain control of the preparation of the plans and specifications.

At the time the city undertook this work there were 15 men in the city’s engineering department who were considered qualified and available to design storm control projects. It was estimated that an additional 118 employees would be required to perform the additional engineering work, and that it would take approximately three months to train them. Upon completion of the work the city would have no further use for them.

These engineering services were a specialty within the field of civil engineering. An emergency existed. There was imminent danger of loss of life and damage to property, as well as serious inconvenience to the public. And it was urgently necessary to complete the flood control work with the utmost possible dispatch.

For these reasons the city entered into a contract with the engineering firm of Koebig and Koebig to prepare the plans and specifications for that one of the 53 projects upon which the others were dependent.

Dorsey v. City of Los Angeles

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief