![]() The respondent court was therefore without power to enjoin the board from exercising the powers given it and performing the duties placed upon it by the statute. Code, § 7011) was, as an officer of the law, executing a public statute for the public benefit. 1 In entertaining the accusation and in instituting the disciplinary proceedings against Anthony the registrar of the board (Bus. Petitioner is an administrative agency of the state, charged by law with the duty of investigating the actions of any contractor within the state and of taking disciplinary action against any such contractor should its investigation disclose reason to believe that the contractor has committed any acts which, under the provisions of the statute, are made grounds for disciplinary action. We have concluded, for the reasons hereinafter stated, that a peremptory writ of mandate should issue. Bause are stayed pending final judgment in this action before this Court." Petitioner thereupon filed its petition herein and we issued an alternative writ of mandate. " After argument the court submitted the matter and thereafter entered its order overruling the demurrer and an order reading as follows: "All proceedings before the Contractors' State License Board upon the accusation filed against defendant herein on or about July 26, 1960, in so far as the same depend upon any alleged breach of defendant's contracts or guarantees with Lawrence J. On the day of the hearing of this demurrer, Anthony filed with the court what he entitled "Response to Demurrer to Supplemental Cross-complaint. To this supplemental cross-complaint petitioner filed a general demurrer. In his cross-complaint he alleged in substance the filing of the accusation and complaint against him that the petitioner had threatened to and would prosecute said complaint, and that said proceeding involved the determination of the same question of fact as was involved in the pending action, to wit: the alleged breach of contract by Anthony, and that the trial of said disciplinary proceedings would foreclose and pervert the process of the court in the pending action.īy the prayer of this supplemental cross-complaint he asked that the court "issue a preliminary injunction pending the trial of the cause on the merits, and at the conclusion of the same make its permanent injunction" enjoining the petitioner from proceeding with the hearing upon the charge or accusation filed against Anthony. Upon being served with this complaint, Anthony, by leave of the court, filed a supplemental cross-complaint in which he joined petitioner as a cross-defendant. On July 26, 1960, Bause filed with petitioner an accusation whereby he demanded disciplinary action against Anthony based upon the same breaches of contract as were alleged in his complaint filed in the respondent court, and on the same date an investigator for petitioner filed a complaint with petitioner charging Anthony with having wilfully departed from the plans and specifications for the erection of the swimming pool, alleging in substance the same facts as were alleged in Bause's complaint filed in respondent court. Anthony's pleadings were filed June 29, 1960. ![]() Anthony answered this complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Bause. The relevant facts are: One Bause instituted an action against Anthony in the respondent court to recover damages for breach, by Anthony, of a contract whereby he had undertaken to erect and construct a swimming pool for Bause. Petitioner seeks by this proceeding to compel the respondent court to vacate an order made by it restraining petitioner from taking further action in a disciplinary proceeding against real party in interest, Anthony Pools, Inc., hereinafter called "Anthony," instituted pursuant to article 7, division 3, chapter 9, of the Business and Professions Code. Byrne, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent. Lamoreaux, Assistant County Counsel, and Donald K. Martin and Conrad Lee Klein, Deputy Attorneys General, for Petitioner. Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, Warren H. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent ANTHONY POOLS, INC. CONTRACTORS' STATE LICENSE BOARD, Petitioner, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |