This introductory paragraph really gets to the heart of the matter:
"Plaintiff Dennis Ponte is asking defendant County of Calaveras (County) to pay
him over $150,000 to reimburse him for work purportedly performed on the County’s
behalf pursuant to an oral contract. The contract did not contain any fixed payment, and
no bid was submitted--far less approved--pursuant to relevant county ordinances
governing public contracts. Ponte disregarded opportunities to abandon his claims after
the County provided him with pertinent legal authority demonstrating that his claims
lacked merit."
You don't need to read the remainder of the opinion to figure out where this is going.
Unless, of course, you'd like to see the attorney for Mr. Ponte receive similar critique. But for that you'll only have to read as far as the first footnote:
"We begin by noting with disapproval the paucity of pertinent record citations
throughout Ponte’s opening brief, which contains key passages either devoid of any
citations, or containing inadequate citations, placing an unfair burden on this court. This
same flaw is apparent in the reply brief."
The Court of Appeal certainly isn't shy here.
