DiFiore v. Contractors State Lic. Bd.
Filed 6/22/06 DiFiore v. Contractors State Lic. Bd. CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 ONE
| ROBERT DiFIORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. | B182541 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS090135) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dzintra Janavs, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert DiFiore, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Alfredo Terrazas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Karen B. Chappelle, Sharon F. Cohen, and Earl R. Plowman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
_____________________________
Following a default proceeding, the Contractors State License Board suspended Robert DiFiore's license. DiFiore challenged the suspension by a petition for a writ of administrative mandate but lost, and he now challenges the trial court's ruling. We reject his claims of error and affirm the judgment against him.
FACTS
A.
DiFiore, a licensed general contractor, entered into a contract with Larry and Suzanne Hamer in which he agreed to remodel portions of their house for $15,700. The project was not completed within the agreed time or to the architect's specifications, and the Hamers (who had paid DiFiore $13,000) asked DiFiore to suspend work until he gave them a list of the workers who would complete the job. DiFiore construed the Hamers' request as a termination of the contract without full payment and sued them in Small Claims Court. He lost.
For their part, the Hamers filed a complaint with the Board, claiming they were entitled to a refund of about $9,000 to correct DiFiore's mistakes and to finish the work. The Board conducted an investigation that included discussions with the Hamers, a visit to the Hamers' house, and a review of declarations submitted by the contractors retained by the Hamers to finish the work. In response to the investigator's request for DiFiore's side of the story, DiFiore submitted copies of correspondence and a detailed statement. The investigator ultimately concluded that DiFiore had abandoned the job and had failed to correct his poor workmanship, and that the Hamers were entitled to the money they sought.
B.
A citation issued, alleging eight violations and ordering DiFiore to pay the $9,000 to the Hamers, plus a $2,000 civil penalty to the Board. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7099.)[1] The citation warned DiFiore that his failure to respond would result in further disciplinary action against his license, and advised him of his right to appeal, which he did on January 15, 2003. In May 2003, a two-day hearing was set to commence on January 5, 2004.
DiFiore failed to appear on January 5, and the Administrative Law Judge (after confirming that DiFiore had received the appropriate notices) remanded the matter to the Board for its decision.[2] On February 19, the Board issued an order confirming DiFiore's failure to appear, affirming the citation in its entirety, and informing DiFiore that the $2,000 penalty was due on or before March 19, and that the $9,000 was to be paid to the Hamers by March 26. Represented by counsel, DiFiore filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.
On March 29, the Board notified DiFiore that unless he complied with the citation by April 28, his license would be automatically suspended for one year (during which time he could end the suspension by compliance) and that, absent compliance within the one year period, his license would be automatically revoked. DiFiore appealed on April 21. On April 28, the Board notified DiFiore that his appeal was denied and that, absent immediate compliance, his license would be automatically suspended.
C.
Still represented by counsel, DiFiore filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) in which he asked the trial court to stay the suspension and, ultimately, to compel the Board to set aside its decision.[3] The gist of the petition is that DiFiore had notice of the hearing but mistakenly calendared it for January 6 instead of January 5, that he was reviewing his papers on January 5 when he realized his error, that he called the Office of Administrative Hearings, and that he was told the matter had been concluded in his absence. Other than that, the petition does no more than recite the sequence of events summarized above and assert that, in his absence, the Administrative Law Judge was required to decide the dispute on its merits (rather than treating DiFiore's failure to appear as an abandonment of his appeal).
The Board concurrently demurred and answered, and a trial was held at which the court agreed with the Board that the petition was untimely but nevertheless considered the merits of DiFiore's claim and denied it, finding there was no prejudicial abuse of discretion. More specifically, the court found that DiFiore's default permitted the Board to â€
