S&B Services v. County of San Joaquin CA3

Filed 3/12/14 S&B Services v. County of San Joaquin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

S & B SERVICES, INC. et al., C068906

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. CV031824)

v.

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs S & B Services, Inc. (S&B), a California corporation, Lewis F. Steele, and Sam Beasley operate alcohol and drug programs. S&B entered into an oral agreement with defendant County of San Joaquin (County) employees Dan Bava, Bruce Hopperstad, and Frances Hutchins to provide programs for the County. Subsequently, S&B filed suit against the County, Bava, Hopperstad, and Hutchins for services provided by S&B to the County. The complaint alleged 10 causes of action and the trial court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to six of the causes of action.

1

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining causes of action and the trial court granted the motion. The court found S&B failed to establish a valid and enforceable contract, the prerequisite for breach of contract claims. S&B appeals, arguing triable issues of fact exist and procedural error. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Beasley and Steele own S&B, a company which provides alcohol recovery programs. In 2003 S&B entered into discussions with County employees from the County Health Care Services Agency to assume liability for the County’s alcohol recovery center (ARC) and to operate the facility for the County. Beasley requested that the oral agreement be put in writing and stated that County employees agreed to do so. However, the oral agreement was never put in writing. According to Beasley, the oral agreement was that on December 1, 2003, S&B would assume operation of the ARC and operate it under the County’s license. Among the other issues covered by the agreement, County employees employed by the ARC would be transferred to other positions and replaced by private sector employees. S&B would run the ARC programs for at least 18 months and provide liability insurance. The County would charge S&B for enrollments, and S&B would collect the fees paid by enrollees. S&B would assume all liability and expenses for the programs.1 S&B began operating the ARC on December 1, 2003. After Beasley discovered the County Board of Supervisors (Board) was unaware of the oral agreement, he asked County employee George Feicht about the discrepancy. Feicht told Beasley two Board members knew of the agreement but did not identify the members by name.