MW Erectors v. Niederhauser Ornamental 1/30/04 CA4/3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2004 » MW Erectors v. Niederhauser Ornamental 1/30/04 CA4/3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: G030681

Case Date: 01/30/2004

Preview:Filed 1/30/04

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MW ERECTORS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NIEDERHAUSER ORNAMENTAL AND METAL WORKS COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. G030681, G030825 (Super. Ct. No. 01CC00661) OPINION

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Pine & Pine, Norman Pine, Beverly Tillett Pine; Gibbs, Giden, Locher & Turner and Richard J. Wittbrodt for Plaintiff and Appellant. Arter & Hadden, William S. Davis, Jack W. Fleming; Lord, Bissell & Brook, William S. Davis; Musick Peeler & Garrett and Jack W. Fleming for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

In this case, a subcontractor on a large commercial project has suffered the consequences of its failure to complete the application process and obtain the requisite contractor's license(s) before signing two separate contracts. The subcontractor's work was terminated before the projects were completed and without the subcontractor having obtained full payment of amounts it claims are due under the contracts. When the subcontractor filed its lawsuit seeking compensation, it was met with a successful motion for summary judgment, based on its noncompliance with the licensing requirements. The subcontractor asserts the trial court erred in granting the motion, because it had substantially complied with the applicable licensing requirements by obtaining a Class C51 license before the completion of the first contract and before undertaking work pursuant to the second contract. In reviewing the ruling on the first contract, we explore the application of Business & Professions Code section 7031 in the context where a contractor is not licensed on the day it undertakes performance of a contract, but becomes licensed before completion of the work. We also address whether, under such circumstances, the contract is illegal and void. We conclude that, in the situation described, the statutory provision permits the contractor to recover compensation for the acts performed while licensed and, that being the case, the contract is neither illegal nor void. As applied to this case, section 7031 does not bar the subcontractor from seeking compensation for all acts performed under the first contract while the subcontractor was licensed. Therefore, summary judgment with respect to the first contract was improper. With respect to the second contract, the parties agree the subcontractor held the Class C-51 license during the entire period of performance. Therefore, as long as the Class C-51 license was the proper license with respect to the work to be performed under that contract, Business & Professions Code section 7031 presents no bar to the recovery of compensation and the contract is not void.

2

The defendants claim that a Class C-23 license was required for the performance of the work under the second contract and that the subcontractor did not hold the requisite license at any time during the performance of that contract. This is a matter we do not decide. Suffice it to say, the subcontractor raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether the Class C-51 license was sufficient for the work performed under the second contract. Therefore, summary judgment was improper as to that contract as well. We reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In addition, we reverse the order awarding attorney fees. I FACTS Turner Construction Company (Turner), as general contractor, hired Niederhauser Metal Works Company, Inc. (Niederhauser)1 to perform certain "miscellaneous metals work" and "ornamental metals work" on Disney's Grand Californian Hotel. Niederhauser, in turn, subcontracted to MW Erectors, Inc. (MW) to perform certain work. Niederhauser and MW entered into a contract dated October 11, 1999, pursuant to which MW agreed to perform structural steel work. On November 12, 1999, Niederhauser and MW entered into a second contract, for the performance of certain ornamental metals work on the project.

We observe inconsistencies in the record concerning the full and complete name of Niederhauser. It is variously referred to as: (a) Niederhauser Metal Works Company, Inc.; (b) Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Company, Inc.; (c) Niederhauser Ornamental and Metal Works Co., Inc., dba Niederhauser Metal Works Co., Inc.; and (d) other similar names. However, it seems apparent that the parties have in all events intended to refer to one and the same corporation, whatever its proper legal name. We will simply refer to the corporation hereinafter as "Niederhauser."

1

3

MW began the structural steel work on or before December 3, 1999. It did not obtain its Class C-51 structural steel contractor license until December 21, 1999. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16,

Download MW Erectors v. Niederhauser Ornamental 1/30/04 CA4/3.pdf