![]() ) “The third method, allowing the court to order compliance, is the least severe and thus only requires that a court find that such an order is necessary and proper under the circumstances.” ( King, supra, at 577-578.) City of Los Angeles (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 91, 95.) Section 1097 “authorizes three methods by which a court may enforce a peremptory writ of mandate: (1) a court may impose a fine not exceeding $1,000 (2) a court may order the disobedient party to be imprisoned until the writ is obeyed and (3) a court may make any order necessary and proper to enforce the writ.” ( King v. The court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce a peremptory writ of mandate. The court has received Respondent’s opposition and Petitioner’s reply. On Decemthe court denied Petitioner’s ex parte application to enforce the writ, and set the mater for hearing. On August 27, 2021, Respondent filed a return to the writ, which states that, after reconsidering the matter in light of the court’s ruling, Respondent imposed a one-year debarment on Petitioners. The court issued a writ directing Respondent to set aside the decision re: debarment dated May 16, 2019, and to reconsider the decision in light of the court’s ruling. On June 14, 2021, the court entered judgment granting the petition for writ of mandate. The parties submitted, without argument, on the court’s tentative ruling to grant the writ petition in part. On May 11, 2021, the writ petition came for hearing before the court. Petitioners Minako America Corporation dba Minco Construction (“Minco”) and Refaat Hilmay Mina (collectively “Petitioners”) move for an order compelling Respondent California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“Respondent” or “DLSE”) to: (1) abide by the court’s peremptory writ of mandamus (2) restore Petitioners’ registration as to all public works projects bid and awarded before the effective debarment date of Septem(3) prevent Respondent from advising that Petitioners are precluded on working as a contractor in public works that Petitioners were awarded prior to Septemand (4) issue a revised debarment order that states Petitioners are not prohibited from working as a contractor on public works based on contracts awarded prior to September 27, 2021. Tentative Decision on Motion to Enforce Peremptory Writ of Mandamus: DENIED Minako America Corporation dba Minco Construction, et al.,Ĭalifornia Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, et al. If you choose to do business with this business, please let the business know that you contacted BBB for a BBB Business Profile.Īs a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.Case Number: *******2356 Hearing Date: FebruDept: 82 BBB Business Profiles are subject to change at any time. When considering complaint information, please take into account the company's size and volume of transactions, and understand that the nature of complaints and a firm's responses to them are often more important than the number of complaints.īBB Business Profiles generally cover a three-year reporting period. ![]() However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. ![]() BBB Business Profiles may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.īBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |