Here is the unpublished opinion in 29 Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos:
An excerpt:
Plaintiff and respondent Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation (Palms), a tribal corporation, sued defendant and appellant Cadmus Construction Co. (Cadmus), a sole proprietorship wholly owned and operated by 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 unlicensed contractor statute (§ 7031). We affirm the judgment.
UPDATE: Opinion certified for publication (11/8/2012):
Turtle Talk 