Banko
Construction v. Superior Court
Filed 1/29/07 Banko Construction v. Superior Court CA2/3
NOT TO BE
PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
BANKO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent;
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Real Party in Interest.
|
|
Purported appeal from
an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, treated as a petition for writ of mandate. Judith C.
Chirlin, Judge. Petition denied.
Law Offices of Don
Iwuchuku and Donald E. Iwuchuku for Petitioner.
No appearance for
Respondent.
Raymond G. Fortner,
Jr., County Counsel, Karen
Lichtenberg, Assistant County Counsel, Michael L. Moore, Deputy County Counsel,
for Real Party in Interest.
_________________________
Plaintiff
and appellant Banko Construction Inc. (Banko) purports to appeal an order following
a grant of summary judgment
in favor of defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles (the County). The
appeal is premature; due to the pendency of the County's cross-complaint, there
is no final judgment in the action. In order to resolve this matter on the
merits, we treat the purported appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. (9 Witkin, Cal.
Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, §§ 77, 88, pp. 131-132, 147-149.)
The essential issue
presented is whether Banko, which is seeking to recover against the County on a
construction contract, was in substantial compliance with licensing
requirements.
We conclude, as did the
trial court, that Banko's conduct did not constitute substantial compliance.
Therefore, Banko's petition for writ of mandate is denied.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts.
On February 18, 2000, the County and Mohag Construction Company, Inc. (Mohag), a licensed
contractor, entered into a public works construction contract for
â€
| Description | Plaintiff (Banko) purports to appeal an order following a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent County of Los Angeles (the County). The appeal is premature; due to the pendency of the County's cross complaint, there is no final judgment in the action. In order to resolve this matter on the merits, court treat the purported appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, SS 77, 88, pp. 131 to 132, 147 to 149.) The essential issue presented is whether Banko, which is seeking to recover against the County on a construction contract, was in substantial compliance with licensing requirements. Court conclude, as did the trial court, that Banko's conduct did not constitute substantial compliance. Therefore, Banko's petition for writ of mandate is denied. |
| Rating |
