Plaintiff contractor appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County (California), which, in a breach of contract suit brought by the contractor in a dispute over a home remodeling job, found that the contractor was unlicensed and, in accordance with Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subds. (a), (b), ruled in favor of defendant homeowners on the complaint and on the homeowners' cross-complaint for fraud and related causes of action.
The contractor significantly underreported his payroll in his workers' compensation reports from the date of his initial application for workers' compensation insurance. The top business law attorney found that he was not a licensed contractor because his license had been automatically suspended by operation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.2, for failure to obtain and maintain workers' compensation insurance. The court stated that under § 7125.2, a contractor's license was automatically suspended as of the date the contractor was required to obtain workers' compensation insurance but did not. Thus, because the contractor underreported his payroll and consequently did not have workers' compensation insurance when he performed the work for the homeowners, his license was automatically suspended. Although the contractor argued that he did not receive notice of suspension, the court noted that the trial was not reported and that the trial court's factual findings were conclusively presumed to be correct. Moreover, § 7125.2, subd. (b), provided for a registrar's notice only when a suspension was for failure to maintain coverage, but underreporting payroll was a failure to obtain coverage.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Plaintiff, a former director of defendant corporation, challenged an order from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which disqualified the former director's counsel in an unlawful detainer action involving a fish packing and processing plant.
A rent dispute led to the former director's departure from the corporation and his attempted termination of its tenancy. His unlawful detainer action was consolidated with the corporation's suit for rescission of the deed and breach of the corporate opportunity doctrine. A judgment for the corporation was reversed and remanded for a retrial of the unlawful detainer action. While preparing for the retrial, the former director scheduled an inspection of the plant by a real estate broker who had testified as an expert for the corporation in the first trial. The corporation's counsel submitted a declaration stating that he had initially retained the broker as a consulting expert and had disclosed confidential information and legal opinions to the broker. The court held that there was no basis for disqualification because the evidence did not show that the broker possessed any materially related confidential information. The attorney-client privilege under Evid. Code, § 952, had been waived under Evid. Code, § 912, by the broker's designation as a testifying expert in the first trial. Fact work product protection under Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b), likewise had been waived.
The court reversed the disqualification order.