Hawkins v. Zoegall

Background

Plaintiffs Daniel Hawkins and D.D. Restaurant Group, Inc. moved for partial summary judgment on the sixth cause of action in their complaint. The claim was brought under section 7031(b) of the California Business and Professions Code, which allows a person who uses an unlicensed contractor’s services to seek recovery of compensation paid to that contractor.

The opinion states that Centric Solutions, doing business as PSI Pacifica Contractors, contracted to perform construction and related services for plaintiffs in California in January 2021 and began performing those services in February 2021. Centricfm Solutions did not obtain a California contractor’s license until July 2021. D.D. Restaurant Group paid Centricfm Solutions $850,000.

Court’s analysis

Summary judgment is a ruling entered when the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial on the issue presented. The court found that the plaintiffs offered evidence, undisputed by defendants, establishing that D.D. Restaurant Group paid Centricfm Solutions for work performed before Centricfm Solutions obtained its contractor’s license. Based on section 7031(b), the court concluded that D.D. Restaurant Group was entitled to summary judgment on the sixth cause of action against Centricfm Solutions.

The court denied summary judgment for Hawkins because the plaintiffs had not offered evidence that Hawkins made any payment to Centricfm Solutions.

The court also denied summary judgment against Chip H. Zoegall. Although the plaintiffs argued that Zoegall was personally a party to the contract, the evidence created a triable issue of fact—meaning a factual dispute that must be resolved through further proceedings—about whether Zoegall signed the contract in his individual capacity or as Centricfm Solutions’ representative. The opinion notes that the contract identified the contractor as PSI Pacifica Contractors, placed Zoegall’s signature over the contractor-signature line, and included Zoegall’s statement that he was acting as Centricfm Solutions’ president.

Disposition

Judge Maxine M. Chesney vacated the June 17, 2022 hearing and ruled on the parties’ written submissions. The court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion. It granted the motion to the extent plaintiffs sought summary judgment on the sixth cause of action in favor of D.D. Restaurant Group and against Centricfm Solutions in the amount of $850,000. In all other respects, the motion was denied.