Legal Opinion

Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 11, 2012No. E051769PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MILLER, J.

Plaintiff and respondent Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation (Palms), a tribal corporation, sued Cadmus Construction Co. (Cad-mus), a sole proprietorship wholly owned and operated by defendant and appellant Paul Bardos (Bardos) (1) to recover money paid to Cadmus, because it alleged Cadmus was an unlicensed contractor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031)1 and (2) for unfair competition, in that Cadmus allegedly performed work requiring a contractor’s license while unlicensed (§ 17200). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Palms.

Cadmus raises six contentions on…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Guthrey v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Greenspan v. LADT LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Judicial Council v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  2. Siu v. Martinez (In re Martinez)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2013
  3. D.Z. v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Cal. Regional Water Quality Bd.California Court of Appeal · 2022
  5. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. California Regional Water Quality etc.California Court of Appeal · 2022

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API