Womack v. Lovell
188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Womack sued Aztec Sunpower (DA Lovell Corp.) for breach of contract and alleged contractor licensure at all times.
- Aztec cross-claimed for unpaid work and claimed continuous licensure in good standing.
- Caballero cross-claimed against Aztec for damages, not asserting licensure at all times.
- Trial leaned on whether licensure needed to be proven by a verified certificate under §7031(d).
- Womack and Caballero’s counsel moved for nonsuit/JNOV when no verified certificate had been produced by Aztec by trial end.
- The court ultimately granted JNOV against Aztec; on appeal, the court reversed in part and remanded with directions to enter judgment for Aztec against Womack on the cross-claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether licensure was a controverted issue under §7031(d). | Womack argued licensure was controverted, requiring a verified certificate. | Aztec argued licensure was not controverted due to denials and admissions. | Licensure was not controverted; the admission in Womack's complaint bound the issue. |
| Effect of a judicial admission in an unverified complaint on §7031(d). | Womack claimed unverified pleadings cannot bind licensure. | AZTEC argued the complaint admission should bind the issue. | Judicial admission in the complaint bound licensure, relieving Aztec from producing a certificate. |
| Whether Advantec governs the denial of licensure despite later proof of licensure. | Advantec supports denying relief when licensure proof is lacking. | Advantec is distinguishable; admission controls here. | Advantec does not control; judicial admission and procedural context prevail. |
| Whether the sham pleading doctrine bars the cross-complaint denial of licensure. | The denial was legitimate and not a sham. | The denial after admission was improper; constitutes sham pleading. | Sham pleading doctrine applies; improper reversal of the admitted licensure status. |
| Remedy and remand posture after reversal. | Womack seeks to overturn and retain recovery. | Aztec seeks judgment on cross-claims and cost allocations. | Remanded with directions to enter judgment for Aztec on Womack’s cross-claim; Caballero affirmed; costs allocated on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reichert v. General Ins. Co., 68 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1968) (admission in pleading can bind later dispute)
- Advantec Group, Inc. v. Edwin’s Plumbing Co., Inc., 153 Cal.App.4th 621 (Cal. App. Dist. 2nd Div. 2007) (verification requirement; use of admissions to control issues)
- MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc., 36 Cal.4th 412 (Cal. 2005) (subdivision (a) licensure at all times; judicial estoppel limits)
- Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis Waterpark, 52 Cal.3d 988 (Cal. 1991) (core licensure doctrine; substantial compliance not allowed under §7031(a))
- Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction, 103 Cal.App.4th 1264 (Cal. App. 2002) (admissions can bind and affect licensure issues)