Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos
California Court of Appeal
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
- Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Guthrey v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Greenspan v. LADT LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Judicial Council v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- Siu v. Martinez (In re Martinez)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2013
- D.Z. v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Cal. Regional Water Quality Bd.California Court of Appeal · 2022
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. California Regional Water Quality etc.California Court of Appeal · 2022
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.