Facts

Plaintiff Mitchell Watkins was employed by defendants Avner Naggar, Gloria Naggar, Avignor Bar-Din, Marion Bar-Din, Daniel Yoshpe, and Ada Properties, to install a new roof on defendants' commercial property in Concord. A written contract was entered into between Mitchell Watkins Repairs & Construction LLC and defendants for a total price of $84,942.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
One-half of the contract amount was paid upon commencement of the work. After plaintiff contended the work was done, defendants disputed that the work was fully completed and claimed that the work had not been done correctly and that the warranty for the work they had contracted for was not being supplied. Plaintiff claimed that he was owed for the balance of the contract and for additional work, for a total claim of $49,339. Plaintiff recorded a mechanic's lien encumbering defendants' property and then filed suit to foreclose on the lien. With the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff recorded a lis pendens further encumbering the defendants' property. Plaintiff contended that all work was properly done and that he was owed $49,339, plus costs. Plaintiff contended that he was properly licensed in the State of California, and that the contract should have been in his name individually and that it was simply a mistake that the party named in the contract was his limited liability company. Plaintiff claimed that his limited liability company, Mitchell Watkins Repairs & Construction, was a company formed for his work in the State of Washington, and was properly licensed in that state.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants filed both a demurrer and a motion to expunge the lis pendens. The primary basis for both was that plaintiff was not the proper party and that the proper party, a limited liability company owned by plaintiff, was not properly licensed as a contractor in the State of California.

Defendants contended that plaintiff was not entitled to any further payment and should refund all monies previously paid to the plaintiff. Defendants contended that they entered into a contract with Mitchell Watkins Repairs & Construction, whereas the plaintiff in the case was Mitchell Watkins, an individual doing business as Mitchell Watkins Repairs & Construction. While Watkins, the individual, was properly licensed as a contractor in the state, the entity Mitchell Watkins Repairs & Construction was not. The LLC was, in fact, a separate legal entity and that while it was licensed in the State of Washington, it could not properly contract for licensed work in California. The work therefore was done pursuant to a contract with an entity that was not properly licensed in the state. As a matter of law, an unlicensed contractor cannot recover any money based upon a construction contract for work that requires a contractor's license and must refund all monies paid by defendants pursuant to that contract.

Result

The court granted a dismissal of all claims with prejudice. In the court's ruling on defendants' motion to expunge the lis pendens, the court ruled that plaintiff was not likely to prevail on his claims because the party that contracted with the defendants, the LLC, was not properly licensed in the State of California.

Other Information

After that ruling, a settlement was reached whereby the plaintiff dismissed the case with prejudice and the parties executed a mutual release of all claims. FILING DATE: Dec. 9, 2015.