Tricon Construction v. City of Patterson
Filed 3/28/06 Tricon Construction v. City of Patterson CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
<>
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| TRICON CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF PATTERSON et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
F048148
(Super. Ct. No. 353015)
OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John E. Griffin, Jr., Judge.
Robert W. Scharf, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
George G. Logan, for Defendant and Respondent City of Fresno, and Mayol & Barringer, and Bart Barringer for Defendant and Respondent Acme Construction Company, Inc.
-ooOoo-
This appeal arises from a denied writ of mandate by appellant Tricon Construction regarding their failed bid to construct a pool project for respondent City of Patterson. The parties agree the appeal is moot given the apparent completion of the contract appellant sought to obtain for itself by way of the writ. Completion of the project means, of course, we can provide no meaningful relief; mootness occurs when the decision of the reviewing court â€
