Filed 1/19/07 Stern v. ContractorsState License Bd. CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
GARY STERN,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CONTRACTORSSTATE LICENSE BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent.
H030048
(Santa ClaraCounty
Super. Ct. No. CV015110)
Gary Stern (appellant), a contractor doing business as Stern Electric, appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Contractors State License Board (CSLB) and denied appellant's motion for summary judgment. CSLB had suspended appellant's contractor's license, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7071.17 (hereafter section 7071.17),[1] due to an unsatisfied judgment against him. However, prior to the filing of his amended complaint for declaratory relief, the judgment was set aside and CSLB reinstated appellant's license. On the cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found that appellant could not maintain his action for declaratory relief against CSLB because his license had been reinstated. Therefore, there was no â€
Description
Appellant, a contractor doing business as Stern Electric, appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Contractors State License Board (CSLB) and denied appellant's motion for summary judgment. CSLB had suspended appellant's contractor's license, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7071.17 (hereafter section 7071.17), due to an unsatisfied judgment against him. However, prior to the filing of his amended complaint for declaratory relief, the judgment was set aside and CSLB reinstated appellant's license. On the cross motions for summary judgment, the court found that appellant could not maintain his action for declaratory relief against CSLB because his license had been reinstated. Therefore, there was no "actual controversy" relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., S 1060.) Appellant also sought relief under Government Code section 11350, subdivision (a), which provides a means for obtaining a judicial declaration as to the "validity of any regulation" of an administrative agency. However, the court found that appellant could not maintain his action under this statute because he was not challenging a "regulation" within the meaning of that statute.
On appeal, appellant claims that this was a proper action for declaratory relief. Appellant contends that CSLB's policy of applying section 7071.17 to automatically suspend the licenses of contractors who have unsatisfied judgments against them is tantamount to a "regulation," and can therefore be challenged in a declaratory relief action under Government Code section 11350, subdivision (a). He further argues that CSLB's practice of suspending a contractor's license without a hearing works a deprivation of due process.
For reasons court explain below, court reject appellant's arguments. Court find that this was not a proper action for declaratory relief and court therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.
