Argument of Chief Justice Rehnquist
Mr. Rehnquist: I have the opinion of the Court to announce in No. 00-152 Lujan versus G&G Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
The California Labor Code authorizes the State to withhold payments due to a contractor on a public works project if a subcontractor on that project fails to comply with certain prevailing wage requirements of the Code, and it permits the contractor in turn to withhold the similar sums from the sub.
Respondent G&G, a fire protection company, has served as a sub on several California public works projects, payments was withheld from it, pursuant to the statutory plan.
G&G sued the petitioners, various State officials and State agencies under Section 1983, claiming that the withholding of payments without a hearing deprived G&G of property, without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court agreed, declared the relevant Code provisions unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we reverse.
We assume without deciding that payments were withheld from respondent under color of state law, and the respondent has a property interest in its claim for payment under its contract, but we conclude that because California law affords G&G sufficient opportunity to pursue its claim in State Court, the Labor Code does not deprived of its claim with due process of law.
In cases involving deprivation of present entitlements, such as the right of ownership in property, the right to pursue a gainful occupation, we have held the due process requires a reasonably prompt hearing.
The G&G has no present entitlement, it has only a claim that it complied with the terms of its contracts and therefore it has entitled to be paid in full.
G&G’s interest in its claim can be fully protected by an ordinary breach of contract suit.
We believe that such a suit is available to it either under the California Labor Code or state common law.
We therefore hold that the relevant provisions of the Code do not deprive respondent of property without due process of law.
The opinion of the Court is unanimous.
