# Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry

> California Supreme Court · February 24, 1992 · 1 Cal. 4th 976

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560909

## Case

- **Full name:** LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LLOYD W. AUBRY, JR., as Labor Commissioner, Etc., Et Al., Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 24, 1992
- **Citations:** 1 Cal. 4th 976; 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 837; 824 P.2d 643; 30 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1281; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 1270
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Baxter
- **Judges:** Kennard, Panelli, Arabian, Baxter
- **Cited by:** 111 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560909

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[t]he acts of one public agency will bind another public agency only when there is ... an identity of interests between the agencies”
- describing California's public policy interests in enforcing § 90.5(a) for all work performed within its boundaries

## Opinion text

BAXTER, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority that Lusardi Construction Company (Lusardi) cannot be held liable for statutory penalties. I respectfully dissent, however, from the remainder of the judgment and the majority’s reasoning. I have concurred in Justice Panelli’s explanation of why Lusardi should not be required to pay the difference between the prevailing wages and the wages that Lusardi contracted to pay. (Cone, and dis. opn. of Panelli, J., at pp. 999-1004, ante.) I write separately only to state that I also agree with Justice Arabian’s conclusion that the majority opinion results in a miscarriage of justice. (Cone, and dis. opn. of Arabian, J., at pp. 1004-1008, ante.) As he explains and as the Court of Appeal observed, this case cries out for application of equitable estoppel.
In an apparent attempt to render its harsh result more palatable, the majority suggests that Lusardi “has remedies against the District, Imperial, and perhaps others for indemnification . . . .” (Maj. opn., at p. 997, ante.) This result not only delays justice to Lusardi, it unnecessarily consumes court resources.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560909. Public record. Not legal advice.