Azteca Enterprizes v. Dallas Area Rapid

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth
in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 03-10564
__________________________
AZTECA ENTERPRIZES, INC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT,
Defendant - Appellee.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(No. 3:99-CV-281-M)
___________________________________________________
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Azteca Enterprizes, Inc. (“Azteca”), appeals the district court’s summary judgment
in favor of Dallas Area Rapid Transit (“DART”). Because we find no error with the district
court’s opinion, we affirm.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
This appeal concerns alleged discrimination during the awarding of a 1998 DART
contract for delivery of concrete cross-ties for use in DART’s light rail line. Azteca argues
that the district court and the administrative law judge erred in finding that Azteca did not
meet the requirements specified in DART’s solicitation and in the contract itself. The
administrative law judge’s thorough findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and we
see no reason to disturb the finding that Azteca was not a “responsible bidder” as required
by the contract. Azteca further argues that, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, it was
subjected to disparate treatment by DART and that the solicitation process had a disparate
impact on Hispanic contractors. Azteca’s disparate treatment claim fails because the other
bidders did meet the PCI certification requirement as specified in the solicitation and in
the contract, while Azteca did not meet that requirement. Azteca’s disparate impact claim
fails because Azteca provided no evidence that Hispanics experienced a disparate impact
as a result of DART’s 1998 cross-ties contracting process.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --