Legal Document

532 U.S. 189121 S.Ct. 1446149 L.Ed.2d 391 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.ARTHUR S. LUJAN, LABOR COMMISSIONER OF CALIFORNIA, et al., PETITIONERSv.G & G FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. No. 00-152. SUPREME COURT THE UNITED STATES Argued February 26, 2001 Decided April 17, Syllabus The California Labor Code (Code) authorizes State withholding payments due a contractor on public works project if subcontractor fails comply with certain requirements; permits contractor, turn, withhold similar sums from subcontractor; and his assignee, sue awarding body for alleged breach contract not making payment recover wages penalties withheld. After petitioner Division Standards Enforcement (DLSE) determined respondent Fire Sprinklers, Inc. (G G), as three projects, had violated Code, it issued notices directing bodies those projects contractors an amount equal forfeited G's violations. withheld contractors, who turn payment. filed 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against DLSE state petitioners District Court, claiming issuance without hearing deprived property process violation Fourteenth Amendment. court granted summary judgment, declared relevant sections unconstitutional, enjoined enforcing provisions G. Ninth Circuit affirmed. certiorari, vacated remanded reconsideration light its decision American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 40, respondents there no interest disputed medical treatment pending review treatment's reasonableness necessity, authorized by law. On remand, reinstated prior judgment opinion, explaining rights were because was immediate payment, but statutory scheme afforded at all. Held: Because law affords sufficient opportunity pursue claim under contracts court, does deprive process. In each this Court's cases relied upon Circuit, claimant denied right virtue which he presently entitled either exercise ownership dominion over real personal property, gainful occupation. See, e.g., James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 43, 62. Unlike claimants, has been present entitlement. It contends owed contract, based State's determination failed contract's terms. That can fully protected ordinary breach-of-contract suit. If makes judicial available resolving contractual dispute, Here, allowing assign suit, provides means bring payments. damages awarded until suit's conclusion claim. Even could obtain assignment, appears remains common law, although final question rests hands courts. Pp. 5-9. 204 F.3d 941, reversed. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Rehnquist, J., delivered unanimous Court. Opinion Chief Justice Rehnquist 1 (Code Code) autho-rizes requirements. subcontractor. Appeals held violate Due Process Clause Amendment afford after such action taken. We 531 924 (2000), we reverse. 2 Petitioners (DLSE), Department Industrial Relations, several officials their official capacities. Respondent G) fire-protection company installs fire sprinkler systems. served projects. "Public works" include construction work done paid whole part funds. Cal. Lab. Ann. 1720 (West Supp. 2001). department, board, authority, officer, agent called "awarding body." 1722 1989). requires subcontractors pay workers prevailing wage State. 1771, 1772, 1773 1989 At time here, wage, required worker difference between paid, addition forfeiting penalty 1775 2001).1 clause so stipulating. Ibid. 3 "[b]efore money work, shall retain therefrom all have pursuant stipulation terms chapter." 1727 subcontractor's failure Code's provisions, "[i]t lawful [the] him cover withheld." 1729 1989).2 4 "on thereof ... payment" 1731, 1732 must brought within 90 days completion acceptance job. 1730. Such "is exclusive remedy her assignees." 1732. retains "pending outcome suit." 1731.3 5 1995, G, failing keep and/or furnish payroll records request. them total withheld, according respondent, exceeded $135,000. App. 68. 6 sued Central California. sought declaratory injunctive relief Rev. Stat. 1979, constituted deprivation respondent's motion 1727, 1730-1733, 1775, 1776(g), 1813 these respondent. Pet. Cert. A85-A87. appealed. 7 A divided panel Bradshaw, 156 893, 898 (CA9 1998) (Bradshaw I). concluded "has being full completed," id., 901, found "as result state's action," 903. decided "afforded neither pre- nor post-deprivation when [were] withheld," Id., 904. 8 Following Bradshaw I, 40 (1999), where also Sullivan involved challenge private insurer's "fairly attributable State," therefore satisfy critical element 58. reasonable necessary treatment, yet deemed meet criteria. 61. certiorari Appeals, Sullivan. Inc., 1061 (1999). 9 again vote. "specifically directed [and] party discretion." 944 2000). view, consistent did funds whatever kind would afforded," "explicitly hearing." F.3d, 943. explained "because 943-944. 10 Where challenged grounds, inquire whether interest, procedures comport supra, 59. assume, deciding, occurred color that, concluded, considered Logan Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 422 (1982), contracts. believe conclude See Logan, 433 ("[T]he grants aggrieved case merits fairly judged"). 11 our dealing claims hold reasonably prompt 903-904 (citing 43 (1993); FDIC Mallen, 486 230 (1988); Barry Barchi, 443 55 (1979)). Good, Government owner house forfeiture used commit facilitate commission federal drug offense notice seizing property. U.S., racetrack trainer suspended 15 suspicion horse drugging postdeprivation administrative hearing. 63-64. And president Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured bank office accorded procedure render suspension. 241-243. Sniadach Family Finance Corp. Bay View, 395 337 (1969) (holding garnished). 12 cases, only full. Though assume purposes here see 5-6, unlike interests discussed above, 13 Cafeteria Restaurant Workers McElroy, 367 886, 895 (1961) (citations omitted), said: 14 "The very nature negates concept inflexible universally applicable every imaginable situation. ' "[D]ue process," some legal rules, technical conception fixed content unrelated time, place circumstances.' 'compounded history, reason, past course decisions .' " 16 "the assignee" thereof" recovery penalties." There basis refuse fact, stated oral argument superior 1731-1733 previous Tr. Oral Arg. 27, 40-41, 49-50. Presumably, assignee requires. Thus, 17 complains inadequate suit," last years. 51. lawsuit duration, while undoubtedly something hardship, cannot said contract. Lawsuits known expeditiously claims, standard practice suits award damages, appropriate, case. 18 assignment B. Witkin, Summary Law 791, 797 (9th ed. 1987) (defining "unjustified unexcused perform contract" describing remedies law). To sure, "exclusive assignees" respect penalties. But assignees, thus receive assignment. J K Painting 45 4th 1394, 1402, 53 Rptr. 2d 496, 501 (1996) (allowing Commissioner's petition writ mandate). 19 Painting, Appeal rejected do "fatal attempt secure relief." 1401, n. 7, 2d, 501, 7. expressly impose requirement, declined infer intent "create remedial exclusivity" context. like bringing Our view necessarily tentative, since courts, convinced us avenue closed it. 4, 500, (noting might assert variety defenses evaluating soundness). As challenging scheme, bears burden demonstrating unconstitutionality. Cf. INS Chadha, 462 919, (1983) (statutes presumed constitutional). Accordingly, 20 ordered. NOTES: imposes restrictions recordkeeping working hours, similarly penalized them. 1776(a), (b), (g) 2001), 1776(h), 1813. Sections 1776, subsequently amended provide both Code. 1775(a), Amendments paid. 1775(a). effective July 1, 2001, additional requirements contractors. 1727(b) 2001) (contractor request Commissioner circumstances); 1775(b)(3) take corrective halt aware penalties). 1730-1733 repealed, 2001. Section 1742 replaced "[a]n affected civil assessment [under Code] transmitting written Commissioner." 1742(a). then Director appoint impartial officer. Within hearing, director issue affirming, modifying, dismissing assessment. director's filing mandate court. 1742(b), (c). These effect here.

Classification Label: 3