Procedural Posture

The People challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, California, which dismissed their action against respondents, a debt collection company and its attorneys, that alleged a violation of California's unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. The trial court found that the action was barred by the litigation privilege, Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b).

Overview

The action was based on the People's allegation that respondents repeatedly violated California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (California Act), Civ. Code, § 1788 et seq., and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Federal Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. The court held that the litigation privilege did not apply to causes of action based on violations of the California Act Penal Code 220 Assault with Intent to Commit a Felony and the Federal Act. The court observed that the unfair competition law borrowed violations of other laws and treated them as unlawful practices. Where, as here, the borrowed statute was more specific than the litigation privilege and the two were irreconcilable, unfair competition law claims based on conduct specifically prohibited by the borrowed statute were excepted from the litigation privilege. Accordingly, the People's unfair competition law claims that were based on conduct specifically prohibited by the California Act and/or the Federal Act were not barred by the litigation privilege.

Outcome

The court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff appealed from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants appealed denial of their motion for attorney's fees.

Overview

Defendant owner contracted with defendant general contractor for the construction of a ride at defendant owner's theme park in Universal City, California. Defendant general contractor subcontracted with defendant subcontractor who in turn entered into another subcontract with plaintiff. Upon completion of the project, plaintiff sued defendants for breach of contract and foreclosure of mechanics liens. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the grounds that plaintiff was unlicensed during a period of its contract, and under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 7031. On appeal, the court affirmed. An unlicensed contractor could not maintain an action for work performed. Plaintiff was aware in that its license was suspended and that its renewal application was sent in untimely. These facts did not suggest that plaintiff acted reasonably or in good faith to maintain licensure, therefore the court rejected plaintiff's claim of substantial compliance under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 7031.

Outcome

The summary judgment was affirmed, because, as an unlicensed contractor, plaintiff could not maintain an action for work performed under a contract. The order denying defendants' attorney's fees was reversed, because there was a valid attorney's fees provision between the parties and defendants were prevailing parties in plaintiff's action.