Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—Cal. App.: Process server’s monopolization claims against California Transportation Department tossed, (Feb 19, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A process server contractor for the California Department of Transportation (CDOT) failed to state a Sherman Act, Cartwright Act, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) cause of action against CDOT for the alleged wrongful termination of his contract, the California appellate court in San Diego has affirmed. The allegations in the contractor’s complaint were outside of the scope of claims initially brought before the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Jansing v. California, February 18, 2016, Huffman, R.).

CDOT executed an agreement with the contractor for the contractor to provide legal photocopying and process server services for CDOT’s legal office located in San Diego. The contractor eventually filed two government claims with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, alleging that CDOT wrongfully terminated the contract. The claims were rejected. The contractor now appeals a trial court’s order dismissing various allegations, including claims that CDOT violated the Cartwright Act, Sherman Act, and RICO.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s order, agreeing with CDOT that the allegations in the court complaint varied significantly from the matters in the initial two government claims.

Sherman Act, Cartwright Act claims. The appellate court determined that the allegations contained in both of the contractor’s government claims fell woefully short of notifying CDOT that the contractor believed CDOT had violated state and federal antitrust laws. The first government claim concerned the alleged wrongful termination of a contract between the contractor and CDOT, and the second government claim concerned the award of a single contract to another company as well as allegations that CDOT changed the requirements for the bids that prevented the contractor from bidding to be awarded the contract. The appellate court noted that “there is not even a hint in the second government claim” that the contractor was subsequently going to allege that CDOT and its employees were engaging in activities to restrain or monopolize trade on the scale required under state and federal antitrust laws. The antitrust causes of action therefore failed.

RICO claim. The court also determined that the contractor’s RICO claim relied on allegations that were far beyond those set forth in the contractor’s government claims. In particular, the court found that there were no facts in the government claims that put CDOT on notice that the contractor would bring a RICO claim. This cause of action consequently failed and the lower court did not err in dismissing the claims.

The case is No. D067278.

Attorneys: John Silas Hopkins, III for Nicholas Jansing. Jeanne E. Scherer, Transportation Department-Legal Division, for State of California.

Cases: Antitrust RICO CaliforniaNews