Unlicensed Contractor, Serna Motion Granted, Dismissal

In 2013, our client, then age 45, and his colleague, allegedly met with a homeowner and agreed to remodel her kitchen at her home in Pacific Palisades.  Our client and his colleague worked together.  The agreed upon fee between the homeowner, our client and his colleague was $56,000 and a contract for such work was signed. 

Our client did not have a contractor’s license, but his colleague did and this was openly discussed with the homeowner so she understood. 

 

A few days later, the homeowner paid our client $10,000 and the demolition work began.  The money really should have been paid to the person with the contractor’s license.

The homeowner made further payments as work progressed.  According to her, after she paid $46,100 in total, our client unexpectedly stopped work and disappeared. 

The homeowner then hired another contractor $230,000 to “correct and complete the job.”  Such a fee, more than four times the fee agreed upon by our client, his colleague and the homeowner, certainly suggested a broader scope of work than just correcting and completing the job.

After the work was done, she called the police and reported our client as operating as an unlicensed contractor and botching the work on her kitchen. 

No photographs existed of the allegedly shoddy work completed by our client or any other evidence that permitted a valuation of the economic loss, if any, suffered by the homeowner. 

In fact, it was not clear if the homeowner simply changed her mind about her kitchen remodel and decided to hire another contractor to change the remodel of her kitchen – and then try to have our client pay her some amount for her expenses in “correcting and completing the job.”

Investigators from the State tried to find our client to ask him his version of what happened and could not find him because he had moved.  Investigators then filed their report with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, who prepared a criminal complaint against our client for violation of Business & Professions § 7028.

In January 2016, the instant matter was filed. 

Between that time and late 2022, our client was unaware of the filing.  He only learned about it when he was pulled over by a police officer for a minor traffic violation and the officer notified him of the bench warrant for him since 2016.

The client then contacted Greg Hill & Associates and said he was not certain what such a case was about, but he believed it most likely was about this particular homeowner, as she was very difficult to get along with. 

Greg then explained how such cases are typically handled in the Downtown Los Angeles Clara Shortridge Foltz courthouse, what a Serna motion (Serna v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 239, 707 P.2d 793, 219 Cal. Rptr. 420) is and what judicial diversion is, describing each as potential ways to resolve the case.

The client then hired Greg Hill & Associates and in late December 2022, Greg appeared in court and had the bench warrant recalled.  Greg was then provided with twenty-six pages of discovery the Contractors State License Board Report, the contract between the homeowner and our client and photocopies of checks from the homeowner to our client, not to his colleague.

The report contained no photographs or report, or any other documentation of any sort of what work was finished by our client before the homeowner hired another contractor to, in her words, “correct and complete the job.”

This was very significant because restitution is based on the victim’s actual loss.  Walker v. App. Div. Sup. Ct. (2017) 14 Cal. App. 5th 651 (Exh. A). Here, the alleged victim paid $46,100 of a $56,000 contract for a kitchen remodel.  The victim, unhappy with the work completed by Defendant, then paid another contractor $230,000 “to correct and complete the job,” which suggested the second contractor did far more than just the original scope of work.  However, due to the passage of nine years and the dearth of photographs to show work performed, this could not be determined, as normal wear and tear and repairs certainly are likely in the nine years.

Greg then filed a Serna motion, stating that our client had suffered actual prejudice due to the passage of time because no valuation could be made of any damages.

Greg cautioned the client that while this might be true, the argument was “putting the cart in front of the horse” insofar as this was only an issue if our client was found guilty of operating as an unlicensed contractor, which he undoubtedly was.

However, neither the judge nor the Los Angeles City Attorney seemed to appreciate or recognize this issue and the judge granted the motion, saving our client potentially $230,000.  The client was extremely happy with this dismissal.

For more information about the issues in this case, please click on the following articles: