California’s Business and Professions Code bars a non-licensed contractor from an action to collect for unpaid services. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this state law ban on such actions has no application if the services were provided to a federal project and suit is filed to collect under a Miller Act payment bond.
Plaintiff Technica, Inc. was a sub-subcontractor to Candelaria Corporation, a prime contractor on a federal fence replacement contract. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company issued the payment bond required by the Miller Act (40 USC § 3131 et seq.). Technica submitted invoices in excess of $800,000 to Otay Group, Inc. (a subcontractor) and Candelaria. After Candelaria terminated Otay and full payment had not been made to Technica, Technica sued Candelaria and Carolina Casualty in federal district court under the Miller Act.
The district court granted the prime contractor and surety’s motion for summary judgment on grounds that Technica did not hold a California contractor’s license. The Ninth Circuit reversed, following United States Supreme Court precedent and decisions by the Eight and Tenth Circuits. Distinguishing this case from others that dealt with the substantive law of contracts, the Ninth Circuit held that the California statutory limitation on the right to maintain an action "does not apply to an action under the Miller Act." The rationale was that "application of California’s licensing statute as a defense to a Miller Act claim would…condition the rights of a subcontractor on the procedural requirements of state law … and … result in the nullification of those rights entirely." The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is attached here for convenience.
California’s Business and Professions Code bars a non-licensed contractor from an action to collect for unpaid services. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this state law ban on such actions has no application if the services were provided to a federal project and suit is filed to collect under a Miller Act payment bond.
Plaintiff Technica, Inc. was a sub-subcontractor to Candelaria Corporation, a prime contractor on a federal fence replacement contract. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company issued the payment bond required by the Miller Act (40 USC § 3131 et seq.). Technica submitted invoices in excess of $800,000 to Otay Group, Inc. (a subcontractor) and Candelaria. After Candelaria terminated Otay and full payment had not been made to Technica, Technica sued Candelaria and Carolina Casualty in federal district court under the Miller Act.
The district court granted the prime contractor and surety’s motion for summary judgment on grounds that Technica did not hold a California contractor’s license. The Ninth Circuit reversed, following United States Supreme Court precedent and decisions by the Eight and Tenth Circuits. Distinguishing this case from others that dealt with the substantive law of contracts, the Ninth Circuit held that the California statutory limitation on the right to maintain an action "does not apply to an action under the Miller Act." The rationale was that "application of California’s licensing statute as a defense to a Miller Act claim would…condition the rights of a subcontractor on the procedural requirements of state law … and … result in the nullification of those rights entirely." The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is attached here for convenience.
