Unlicensed Contractor, Long Beach, Judicial Diversion Denied

In 2019, our client operated as a roofing repairman and had done so for years.  He had many loyal customers who recommended him to others.  He was 52 years old.  He also worked as handyman.

In 2019, a homeowner in San Pedro hired him to repair a hole in her roof and replace the gutters along the roof edge.  The contract specified payment of $6,000 and the homeowner was obligated to pay $3,000 up front, before any work began.

As the reader of this summary may be aware, such a contract for performance of home repairs or residential improvements is illegal, as only $1,000 or ten percent of the contract fee may be demanded in advance, whichever is less.  Business and Professions Code § 7159.5 specifies this.

Our client was also operating illegally because he did not have a state-issued contractor’s license, as is required under Business & Professions Code § 7028(a).

Our client explained his lack of a license to the homeowner, a widow in her late sixties, but added that his fee would be lower because he did not have a license.  She said she understood and agreed, as she was most concerned about the fee and getting the work done by a skilled roofer.

Our client performed the work on the roof, but was unable to finish installing the gutters on the house because the maker of the gutters no longer produced the same style of gutters.  Our client explained that he would search around some stores in the Los Angeles area for such gutters, but never found them, so the client never paid the full price of the contract. 

She then reported our client to the Los Angeles Police Department because he operated without a license.

The LAPD took three years to find our client, but did eventually catch up to him in 2022, mailing him a letter to report to the Long Beach Courthouse for a bench warrant that was issued after he failed to appear for an arraignment on a misdemeanor case for violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 7028(a) and 7159.5.

The client called Greg Hill & Associates and explained the facts as he understood them, although he was hazy about exactly who the customer was without a police report.

Greg explained his experience with such a case, as he had handled several over the years.  Greg also explained that judicial diversion most likely would be offered to resolve the case, provided that the client first and foremost pay the homeowner to either finish the work left undone or perhaps perform some community service.  The case would then be dismissed.

Greg explained that if the judge denied judicial diversion, then he would be looking at a conviction wherein he would be obligated to pay the statutory sums that were associated with operating as an unlicensed contractor and charging an illegal down payment on a contract for residential home improvement or home repairs, in addition to restitution to the homeowner.

Greg explained that the client would owe the full contract fee ($6,000, plus interest at 10% per year, or $8,100 (three and a half years)), plus statutory fines of up to $5,000 for contracting without a license (plus penalties and assessments, increasing the total owed to over $20,000) and an additional fine up to $5,000 for an illegal down payment for an illegal down payment on a home improvement contract, also plus penalties and assessments.

The client was shocked, but said he understood.

Greg then appeared in the Long Beach Courthouse to have the bench warrant recalled.  The client stayed at work. 

Curiously, the new judge did not permit Greg to appear on the client’s behalf under Penal Code § 977(a).  This was odd, as Greg had done so in misdemeanor cases (over 1,000 cases) over the last 24 years.  The judge said she would require our client to come to court to allow the People the chance to be heard on bail for our client.

Angry that the judge was “throwing around her weight,” Greg told the client what an odd experience he had and had the client come to court a few days later.  The judge then did recall the bench warrant and did set bail at zero, although she warned our client not to operate as a roofer again until he was licensed.  The client agreed.

About a month later, Greg received an angry phone call from the Los Angeles City Attorney prosecuting the case stating that our client was still advertising on Craig’s List as a roofing repairman and making matters worse, the police had called him, told him to take down the ads and he had not.

An amended complaint was filed, adding nine new counts, one for each day our client advertised (considering operating as an unlicensed contractor under § 7028).  Now our client’s financial exposure was over $500,000 and he faces many years in county jail.

The judge again demanded that our client come to court in person, which he did.  Greg then requested judicial diversion, which the judge denied, snapping back “denied” in less than a second.  This was improper, as judicial diversion is available to every misdemeanor offense except domestic violence, stalking, violating of a domestic violence protective order or a sex offense.

Moreover, the judge strongly suggested that she would set bail and that our client would be remanded to jail.

To avoid this, Greg negotiated a plea bargain with the Los Angeles City Attorney wherein our client faced no jail, was placed on one year of informal probation, had to pay a fine of $220, but had to also perform 322 hours of community service (the conversion from a fine of $20,240 for a $2,500 fine for both a 7028 and 7159.5 violation).  The client was relieved to avoid jail, but rattled by the vindictive, angry judge.

We offer this summary to show how a new judge can misuse her power, denying judicial diversion improperly and threatening bail on a case that is little more of a public safety danger than operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license.

For more information about judicial diversion, bail and expungement effects on a professional license, please click on the following articles: