Appellant, an unsuccessful bidder on a public works contract awarded by respondent city

Appellant, an unsuccessful bidder on a public works contract awarded by respondent city to respondent lowest bidder, sought review of a judgment and order from the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which denied the unsuccessful bidder's petition for a writ of mandate under san diego current minimum wage Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, challenging the city's award of the contract.

The first page of the lowest bidder's bond was missing from its bid package. The city determined that the missing page was an inconsequential deviation from the bidding requirements because the second page of the bond, which was included in the bid package and contained the required signatures and notary certificates, provided sufficient information to assure the city that the lowest bidder had complied with the bid security requirements of San Leandro Mun. Code, § 1-5-220, and Pub. Contract Code, §§ 20170, 20171. The court held that substantial evidence supported the city's determination. Because the lowest bidder used the city's standard form bid bond and provided enough information on the second page for the city to confirm it had obtained the required bid bond from an approved surety, the city reasonably could find that it satisfied the bid requirements and was the lowest responsible bidder. The city had discretion to waive the deviation as inconsequential because the evidence did not establish that the bid could have been withdrawn without penalty based on material mistake as described in Pub. Contract Code, § 5103; thus, the omission did not result in a competitive advantage.

The court affirmed the judgment and order.

Plaintiff shooting victim sued defendant mobilehome park owner for premises liability. The trial court granted a defense motion for nonsuit after presentation of the victim's case, but the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court's judgment. The mobilehome park owner petitioned for review.

The victim was shot and injured while he was a bystander to a gang confrontation involving a resident of the mobilehome across the street from his. The court concluded that the owner of the mobilehome park did not have a duty to refuse to rent to gang members. It declined to impose such a burdensome, dubiously effective and socially questionable obligation on landlords, at least absent circumstances showing gang violence was extraordinarily foreseeable. Much greater foreseeability than that demonstrated here was required to recognize a duty not to rent housing to gang members. The owner did not have a duty to evict gang member tenants. The facts known to the owner did not make a violent gang confrontation so highly foreseeable as to justify imposition of a duty to undertake eviction proceedings. The owner did not have a duty to hire security guards to prevent gang violence in the mobilehome park and to maintain brighter lights in the common areas. The record contained insufficient evidence for a jury to find the absence of security guards and inadequate lighting were substantial factors causing the victim's injury. Therefore, the grant of nonsuit was proper.

The judgment of the intermediate appellate court was reversed.