Bardos

Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos

Good Law
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 52·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1173·210 Cal. App. 4th 1435
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 11, 2012No. E051769California8,331 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Miller, J.

Plaintiff and respondent Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation (Palms), a tribal corporation, sued Cadmus Construction Co. (Cad-mus), a sole proprietorship wholly owned and operated by defendant and appellant Paul Bardos (Bardos) (1) to recover money paid to Cadmus, because it alleged Cadmus was an unlicensed contractor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031) 1 and (2) for unfair competition, in that Cadmus allegedly performed work requiring a contractor’s license while unlicensed (§ 17200). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Palms.

Cadmus raises six contentions on appeal. First, Cadmus asserts section 7031 does not apply to contracts made with a tribal corporation for work done on tribal land. Second, Cadmus asserts the trial court erred by sustaining Palms’s objections to Cadmus’s evidence “en masse.” Third, Cadmus asserts there is a triable issue of fact as to whether it held a valid license. Fourth, Cadmus contends that if it was not properly licensed, then there is a triable issue of fact as to whether it satisfies the substantial compliance requirements. (§ 7031, subd. (e).) Fifth, Cadmus contends Palms is estopped from seeking recovery pursuant to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.