Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. v. City of St. Charles, 49443
| Decision Date | 22 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 49443,49443 |
| Citation | 701 S.W.2d 497 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | METCALF & EDDY SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. CHARLES, Missouri, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
Keith W. Hazelwood, St. Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.
Paul F. Niedner, St. Charles, Robert Louis Rosenfeld, Clayton, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiff, Metcalf & Eddy's Services, Inc., a bidder on a contract for sewer services, sued defendants, City of St. Charles (City); its Mayor, Council Members, and Finance Director/Purchasing Director, and Environmental Management Corporation (EMC) [the successful bidder], for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, attorney fees, and costs. Defendants moved dismissal of the action. The trial court sustained the motion. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
A motion to dismiss concedes the truth of all facts well pleaded. Higday v. Nickolaus, 469 S.W.2d 859, 864 (Mo.App.1971). Where the allegations, taken at broadest intendment, invoke principles of substantive law which entitle the pleader to relief, the petition stands as a valid statement of claim. Pollard v. Swenson, 411 S.W.2d 837, 838, 840 (Mo.App.1967). Where the allegations plead alternative relief, the sufficiency of one statement as a valid claim for relief remains unaffected by the insufficiency of the other. White v. Mulvania, 575 S.W.2d 184, 188 (Mo. banc 1979).
On July 30, 1983, plaintiff received an invitation to indicate an interest in bidding on a contract for the operation and maintenance of City's sanitary sewage treatment facilities. On September 15, 1983, plaintiff received a request for proposal for the operation and maintenance for City's waste water treatment facilities under a five-year full service (lump) contract. On October 17, 1983, plaintiff submitted a bid for $78,700 per month with adjustments. A bid by EMC for $91,000 per month with adjustments was also submitted to City. On December 1, 1983, City passed Ordinance 83-111 which authorized the Mayor to enter into a contract between City and EMC for the operation and maintenance of the City's sewage operation facilities. On December 6, 1983, the Mayor approved the Ordinance; the operation and maintenance agreement was executed with EMC on December 21, 1983. The contract price is $81,250 per month with adjustments.
Plaintiff filed suit on December 31, 1983 in four Counts. Count I seeks to declare Ordinance 83-111 illegal and void, award plaintiff its equitable and just costs; including attorney's fees and court costs, declare plaintiff the lowest and best bidder, and order defendants to show cause why plaintiff should not be awarded the City's contract to provide operations and maintenance of City's waste water treatment facilities. Count II seeks to abrogate the City contract with EMC, award plaintiff the contract based upon the Administrative Review Act § 536.140.1 RSMo 1978, and award plaintiff its costs. Count III seeks injunctive relief, under § 536.150 RSMo 1978, to enjoin defendants from performing pursuant to Ordinance 83-111, order defendant City to enter into a contract with plaintiff for plaintiff to provide operations and maintenance of the waste water treatment, and award plaintiff its costs. Count IV seeks injunctive relief against defendants restraining performance of the City contract with EMC and mandatory injunction to award the contract to plaintiff, and costs.
A prerequisite to affording plaintiff a review on the merits of its petition is a determination whether plaintiff has standing to maintain its cause of action. It was encumbent upon the plaintiff to allege a special pecuniary interest in the matter, showing a clear legal right to the relief asked. However, the rejection of plaintiff's bid did not give it any enforceable private right. State v. Sevier, 339 Mo. 483, 98 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Mo. banc 1936). As an unsuccessful bidder, plaintiff was not deprived of anything to which it was legally entitled and therefore cannot state a cause of action. La Mar Construction Company v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanten v. School Dist. of Riverview Gardens
...v. Reorganized School District R-VI of Christian County, 765 S.W.2d 317, 320-22 (Mo.Ct.App.1989); Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. v. City of St. Charles, 701 S.W.2d 497, 499-500 (Mo.Ct.App.1985); La Mar, 542 S.W.2d at 570. In exercising their discretion, school districts are free to reject th......
-
Higgins Elec., Inc. v. O'Fallon Fire Prot. Dist.
...829 (Mo.Ct.App.2014) ; Pub. Commc'ns Servs., Inc. v. Simmons,409 S.W.3d 538, 546 (Mo.Ct.App.2013) ; Metcalf & Eddy Servs., Inc. v. City of St. Charles,701 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.Ct.App.1985) ; La Mar Constr. Co. v. Holt Cnty., R–II Sch. Dist.,542 S.W.2d 568, 570–71 (Mo.Ct.App.1976).5 Appellant......
-
Demien Constr. Co. v. O'Fallon Fire Prot. Dist.
...No. 3–1 at 7), Plaintiff “was not deprived of anything to which it was legally entitled,” citing Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. v. City of St. Charles, 701 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.Ct.App.1985). (Doc. No. 12 at 3–4) Plaintiff responds that the Eighth Circuit has held that an unsuccessful bidder h......
-
Byrne & Jones Enters., Inc. v. Monroe City R-1 Sch. Dist.
...State ex rel. Johnson v. Sevier , 339 Mo. 483, 98 S.W.2d 677, 681 (1936) ; Page , 765 S.W.2d at 321 ; Metcalf & Eddy Servs., Inc. v. City of St. Charles , 701 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Mo.App.1985) ; La Mar , 542 S.W.2d at 570–71. As this Court has explained, an unsuccessful bidder has no interest i......