(Super. Ct. No. 34200700880769CUBCGDS)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
Rozakis v. City of Sacramento
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Plaintiff Emmanuel Rozakis entered into a contract with defendant City of Sacramento (the City) to paint the Old Sacramento parking garage. Rozakis performed extra work not covered by his bid and sought payment from the City. When the City refused to pay him, Rozakis brought suit for breach of contract. After a court trial, judgment was entered in favor of the City. The trial court found Rozakis had not obtained the necessary approval authorizing the extra work.
On appeal, Rozakis contends the trial court erred in interpreting various provisions of the City Code. He contends that both Lori Fox, the project manager for the City, and John Crosswhite (Crosswhite), the consultant hired as construction manager, had authority to approve the extra work. Rozakis further contends the judgment must be reversed because the trial court did not rule on his objections to the statement of decision.
We find the trial court properly interpreted the relevant documents governing authority to approve extra work and its statement of decision was sufficient to resolve the outstanding issues. Accordingly, we shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2006, Rozakis and the City entered into a Maintenance Contract, under which Rozakis agreed to paint the Old Sacramento parking garage for $168,000 (the project). The Maintenance Contract was executed by Rozakis and the Assistant City Manager for the City Manager. It was approved as to form by the City Attorney and attested to by the City Clerk. Lori Fox, an administrative analyst with the City, was named the project manager. Under paragraph 2.3 of the contract, the "Project Manager" was defined as "the designated representative of the City of Sacramento for this project."
Paragraph 12.1 of the Maintenance Contract was titled "Changes in Work" and provided: "The Contractor may be ordered in writing by the Project Manager without invalidating this contract, to make changes in the work within the general scope of this contract consisting of additions, deletions or other revisions. The Contractor, prior to the commencement of such changed or revised work, shall submit to the City written copies of any claims or adjustment to the contract amount and time of completion for such revised work in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Contract Documents." The "Contract Documents" included various documents specific to this project, as well as the 1989 Standard Specifications and title 3 of the Sacramento City Code.*fn1
The City hired the Zahn Group as a consultant to coordinate and monitor the progress of the project. The contract for services was executed by the president of the Zahn Group and the interim Director of Transportation for the City Manager. The duties of the consultant included: "Monitor and process all requests for information, change orders, and submittal submitted by contractor." Crosswhite was the Zahn Group employee who was on-site monitoring the project. Paragraph 4 of Exhibit D (General Provisions) to the contract between the City and the Zahn Group provided: "CONSULTANT Not Agent. Except as CITY may specify in writing, CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT's personnel shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT's personnel shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind CITY to any obligations whatsoever."
The City and the Zahn Group entered into a supplemental agreement for payment for an additional 50 hours for, among other things, "change order documentation." This agreement was executed by the Zahn Group and the Director of Transportation for the City Manager.
Rozakis claimed he performed 19 items of additional work on the project. Eighteen were valued at $500 to $3,600. For the remaining item, TSP (trisodium phosphate) cleaning, Rozakis sought $72,429.32.
Rozakis sued the City for breach of contract. He contended he performed additional work on the project that was approved and agreed to by a representative of the City. The City failed to pay Rozakis the balance due for this additional work. He sought $102,062.37 in damages.
The City moved for summary judgment, arguing Rozakis failed to obtain the requisite authorization from the City before commencing the extra work. The trial court denied the motion, finding the City had failed to meet its burden to ...