IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. S233526 Fourth Appellate District, Division One D067383 San Diego County Superior Court 37-2014-00025070-CU-MC-CTL February 28, 2019 Justice Corrigan authored the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justices Chin, Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, and Manella* concurred. __________________________________________________________ * Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY S233526 Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J. The narrow question here is what kind of evidence a court may consider in ruling on a pretrial anti-SLAPP motion in determining a plaintiff’s probability of success. The inquiry has two aspects. One addresses the form in which the evidence is produced in connection with the motion. The other evaluates whether that evidence will be admissible at an eventual trial. We conclude the evidence produced by plaintiff Sweetwater Union High School District (the District) was properly considered and affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment. I. BACKGROUND In November 2006, voters approved Proposition O, a bond measure to fund capital improvements in the District. The District solicited bids to manage various construction projects funded by the measure. It received seven proposals, including a joint submission from defendants Gilbane Building Company (Gilbane), The Seville Group, Inc. (SGI), and Gilbane/SGI, a joint venture (the Joint Venture). A screening committee selected three finalists. The final review committee, consisting of School Superintendent Jesus Gandara and three others, selected defendants’ proposal as the winning bid. Gandara was authorized to negotiate a contract. The District board ultimately approved several contracts with defendants to 1 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J. manage projects arising from Proposition O and a previous measure. A criminal bribery investigation into the awarding of the contracts resulted in an indictment. A number of guilty or no contest pleas followed, including those of Superintendent Gandara, board of trustees members Pearl Quinones, Arlie Ricasa, and Gregory Sandoval, as well as Gilbane program director Henry Amigable and SGI chief executive officer Rene Flores. The District sued to void the contracts and secure disgorgement of funds already paid. It alleged that Amigable, Flores, and others gave meals, vacations, and event tickets to Gandara, board members and their families and friends. (See Gov. Code, §§ 1090, 1092, subd. (a).1) It also alleged contributions were made to various campaigns, charities, and events on the officials’ behalf.2 The conduct allegedly occurred 1 Government Code section 1090, subdivision (a) prohibits listed officers and employees from being “financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which they are members.” Section 1090, subdivision (b) proscribes aiding and abetting a violation of subdivision (a). “Every contract made in violation of any of the provisions of Section ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals