Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Julie Park, et al. v. Bradford Construction, Inc.
Date: 05-28-2025
Case Number: CGC-23-606672
Judge: Not Available
Court: Superior Court, San Francisco County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best San Francisco Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory
Click Here For The Best San Francisco Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best San Francisco Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory
Click Here For The Best San Francisco Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory
Description:
San Francisco, California civil litigation lawyers represented the parties in a breach of contract theory.
Julie Park and Tom McDonald (plaintiffs) filed the underlying action against Bradford Construction, Inc. (defendant) for violating the Contractors State License Law (CSLL). (Bus. &Prof. Code, §§ 7000 et seq.
* * *
Legal issue Can a corporation rely on the substantial compliance exception to recover compensation if it was unlicensed during the execution and performance of a construction contract but later had its license reassigned?
Headnote
CONTRACT LAW. CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE LAW. The case addresses an appeal concerning a construction contract dispute, focusing on whether an unlicensed contractor must disgorge compensation received under the contract pursuant to the Contractors State License Law (CSLL), particularly evaluating the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine under section 7031(e) of the statute.
CONTRACT LAW. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. This judgment discusses the statutory requirements under the substantial compliance provision of section 7031(e), emphasizing that a corporate entity must be duly licensed prior to the performance of work, and cannot rely on an individual's license (corporate officer or manager) to satisfy the CSLL's licensing prerequisites.
PROCEDURAL LAW. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. The court examines the distinction between a denial of summary judgment and a judgment on the pleadings, reversing a trial court's judgment that relied on a prior denial of summary judgment as a basis to dispose of the plaintiff's claim categorically.
Key Phrases Construction contract dispute. Contractor's license requirement. Substantial compliance exception. Judgment on the pleadings. California Court of Appeals.
* * *
MoreLaw's goal is to help people seeking legal assistance to find the best lawyers available to represent them in any county in the United States. Click the link above to see some lawyers available where this case was tried who might be available to represent you. Call 833-200-3094 if you need help finding a lawyer.
Julie Park and Tom McDonald (plaintiffs) filed the underlying action against Bradford Construction, Inc. (defendant) for violating the Contractors State License Law (CSLL). (Bus. &Prof. Code, §§ 7000 et seq.
* * *
Legal issue Can a corporation rely on the substantial compliance exception to recover compensation if it was unlicensed during the execution and performance of a construction contract but later had its license reassigned?
Headnote
CONTRACT LAW. CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE LAW. The case addresses an appeal concerning a construction contract dispute, focusing on whether an unlicensed contractor must disgorge compensation received under the contract pursuant to the Contractors State License Law (CSLL), particularly evaluating the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine under section 7031(e) of the statute.
CONTRACT LAW. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. This judgment discusses the statutory requirements under the substantial compliance provision of section 7031(e), emphasizing that a corporate entity must be duly licensed prior to the performance of work, and cannot rely on an individual's license (corporate officer or manager) to satisfy the CSLL's licensing prerequisites.
PROCEDURAL LAW. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. The court examines the distinction between a denial of summary judgment and a judgment on the pleadings, reversing a trial court's judgment that relied on a prior denial of summary judgment as a basis to dispose of the plaintiff's claim categorically.
Key Phrases Construction contract dispute. Contractor's license requirement. Substantial compliance exception. Judgment on the pleadings. California Court of Appeals.
* * *
MoreLaw's goal is to help people seeking legal assistance to find the best lawyers available to represent them in any county in the United States. Click the link above to see some lawyers available where this case was tried who might be available to represent you. Call 833-200-3094 if you need help finding a lawyer.
Outcome:
Defendant's motion for summary judgement granted.
Reversed.
Reversed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Julie Park, et al. v. Bradford Construction, Inc.?
The outcome was: Defendant's motion for summary judgement granted. Reversed.
Which court heard Julie Park, et al. v. Bradford Construction, Inc.?
This case was heard in Superior Court, San Francisco County, California, CA. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in Julie Park, et al. v. Bradford Construction, Inc.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best San Francisco Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best San Francisco Civil Litigation Lawyer Directory.
When was Julie Park, et al. v. Bradford Construction, Inc. decided?
This case was decided on May 28, 2025.