Hawkins v. Zoegall

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 15, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-08670
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DANIEL HAWKINS; D.D. Case No. 21-cv-08670-MMC RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 8 DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' v. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 9 JUDGMENT ON SIXTH CAUSE OF CHIP H. ZOEGALL; CENTRICFM ACTION; VACATING HEARING 10 SOLUTIONS, INC.

11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is plaintiffs Daniel Hawkins ("Hawkins") and DD Restaurant 13 Group, Inc.'s ("DD Restaurant Group") "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 14 Complaint's Sixth Cause of Action for Recovery of Payments to Unlicensed Contractor," 15 filed May 4, 2022, whereby plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their Sixth Cause of 16 Action, a claim under § 7031(b) of the California Business & Professions Code. 17 Defendants Chip H. Zoegall ("Zoegall") and Centricfm Solutions, Inc. ("Centricfm 18 Solutions") have filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. Having read and 19 considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court 20 deems the matter suitable for determination on the parties' respective written submission, 21 VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 17, 2022, and rules as follows: 22 1. Plaintiffs have offered evidence, undisputed by defendants, that, in January 23 2021, Centric Solutions, doing business as PSI Pacifica Contractors, contracted to 24 perform, and in February 2021 commenced performance of, construction and related 25 services for plaintiffs in California, that Centricfm Solutions did not obtain a California 26 contractor's license until July 2021, and that DD Restaurant Group paid Centricfm 27 1 Hawkins Decl. ¶¶ 4-6, 8-9, Exs. 1, 4, 6.) Accordingly, plaintiffs have shown DD 2 Restaurant Group is entitled to summary judgment on the Sixth Cause of Action as 3 asserted against Centricfm Solutions. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(b) (providing 4 "a person who utilizes the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action . . . to 5 recover all compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or 6 contract"); Goldstein v. Barak Constr., 164 Cal. App. 4th 845, 855 (2008) (holding where 7 defendant is not licensed at time work commences, defendant is "not entitled to any 8 recovery for work performed even if [defendant] obtain[s] its license during construction"); 9 Karton v. Ari Design & Contr., Inc., 61 Cal. App. 4th 734, 740 (2021) (holding "[c]ourts 10 may not resort to equitable considerations when applying [§ 7031(b)]"). 11 2. Plaintiffs have not offered evidence that Hawkins made any payment to 12 Centricfm Solutions, and, accordingly, as to the Sixth Cause of Action, have not shown 13 said plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment against said defendant. 14 3. Plaintiffs have not offered evidence that either plaintiff made a payment to 15 Zoegall. Rather, plaintiffs contend Zoegall was "a party to the [c]ontract in his individual 16 capacity" and that any ruling by which he is not held responsible "would allow an 17 unlicensed contractor to circumvent California's [c]ontractor's [s]tate [l]icensing [l]aw by 18 directing its customer to make the payment to [a] third party." (See Pls.' Mot. at 10:1-6.) 19 A triable issue of fact exists, however, as to whether Zoegall signed the contract in his 20 individual capacity or as a representative of Centricfm Solutions. (See Hawkins Decl. Ex. 21 1 at 1 (designating contracting parties as "Owner: David Hawkins" and "Contractor: PSI 22 Pacifica Contractors"); id. Ex. 1 at 12 (reflecting Zoegall's signature over "CONTRACTOR 23 (Signature)" line); Zoegall Decl. ¶ 2 (averring "all at relevant times I was acting as 24 president of Centricfm Solutions")); cf. F.D.I.C. v. Woodside Constr., Inc., 979 F.2d 172, 25 175 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding, for purposes of transactions governed by UCC, parol 26 evidence is admissible to determine whether signatory signed in individual or 27 representative capacity). Accordingly, neither plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion is hereby GRANTED in part and 3 || DENIED in part, as follows: 4 1. To the extent plaintiffs seek summary judgment on the Sixth Cause of Action in 5 || favor of DD Restaurant Group and against Centricfm Solutions in the amount of 6 || $850,000, the motion is GRANTED. 7 2. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: June 15, 2022 ; . INE M. CHESNEY 11 United States District Judge 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28