Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a failure to pay for construction services.  Defendant Suarez Build Construction Inc. (“Suarez”), a general contractor, retained construction services from KE General Building Inc. (“KE”) for property belonging to Defendant 15951 Alcima LLC (“Alcima”).  Suarez and Alcima failed to pay a balance due of $49,537.43.  KE assigned its claims to Plaintiff SoCal Lien Solutions, Inc. (“SoCal”).   

SoCal brought a complaint against Suarez and Alcima for (1) open book account, (2) services rendered and (3) quasi contract recovery.   

Alcima filed a cross-complaint against SoCal, KE, Suarez, and others for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) recovery on contractor’s license bond and (4) recovery of payments made to unlicensed contractors.  In its sixth cause of action, Alcima challenges the validity of Suarez’s contractor’s license.   

This hearing is on Suarez’s motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031.  Suarez asks the Court to determine whether it has been in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements found in § 7031.  Suarez contends this decision is for the Court, and any evidentiary hearing should be held before a jury trial on Alcima’s cross-claims.  Alcima does not oppose the setting of an evidentiary hearing, but asks that the hearing be set out not less than six months so that Alcima can conduct necessary discovery.             

DISCUSSION        

Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(e) states: “[T]he court may determine there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor (1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.”  Pursuant to § 7031(e), a determination of substantial compliance is a decision for the Court, and an evidentiary hearing is the proper forum for such a determination.  Accordingly, the Court grants Suarez’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.       

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Suarez’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.  The evidentiary hearing is set for March 25, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are ordered to file witness and exhibit lists no later than five days before the hearing. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 26, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court