Court Cases
December 18, 2012
INDIANS / CONTRACTOR LAW
Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation v. Bardos (PDF)
In an Indian tribal corporation's suit to recover money paid for construction work done on tribal land, on the ground that defendant was unlicensed at the time of the contract, a grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed where:
- Defendant argued that sovereign immunity prevented plaintiff from asserting that defendant was not licensed as a contractor under state law because the work was performed on tribal land. This defense was rejected because it is only available to tribal entities and not to non-tribal entities;
- Defendant was the sole shareholder of a corporation that had a contractor’s license, with defendant as Responsible Managing Officer. But the work was performed as a sole proprietorship under a different fictitious business name, and defendant did not obtain a contractor’s license in that name until after the work was complete. Even though a sole proprietorship is not a legal entity separate from the individual owner, the corporate license belonged to the corporation, which is a separate entity, so he could not perform work under the name of the sole proprietorship
- The court rejected defendant’s contention that the corporate identity should be disregarded via the alter ego doctrine because defendant used the sole proprietorship for the purpose of self-dealing, and equity does not require piercing the corporate veil in that circumstance.
- Defendant could not establish substantial compliance with the licensing requirement because he did not meet the criteria of Business and Professions Code Section 7031(e); and
- Defendant contended that plaintiff should be estopped from relying on Section 7031 because plaintiff told defendant that a license was not required for work performed on tribal land. But equitable principles may not be used to circumvent Business and Professions Code section 7031.
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 2 (E051769) 10/11/12 (Pub. order 11/8/12)
