## Facts

- Advantec Group, Inc. developed a multiunit apartment building and hired Edwin’s Plumbing Co., Inc. under a December 29, 2003 plumbing subcontract.
- Edwin’s performed work from February 2004 until November 2004, when Advantec terminated Edwin’s before project completion.
- Advantec sued Edwin’s for breach of contract in January 2005, seeking damages and attorney’s fees.
- Edwin’s filed a cross-complaint in January 2006 (including breach of contract and other claims) alleging it was a licensed plumbing contractor.
- Advantec answered the cross-complaint with a general denial of the material allegations.
- At trial, Edwin’s attempted to prove licensure through testimony of its majority shareholder; Advantec objected under Business and Professions Code § 7031(d), asserting licensure must be proved by a verified Contractors’ State License Board certificate if licensure is controverted.
- The trial court sustained the objection, denied Edwin’s request for a continuance to obtain the verified certificate, and granted nonsuit on the cross-complaint.
- The jury found for Advantec on its complaint and awarded $46,200 in damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a general denial is sufficient to “controvert” a contractor’s allegation of licensure under Business and Professions Code § 7031(d), triggering the requirement of proof by verified license certificate.
2. If licensure was properly controverted, whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to obtain the verified certificate and granting nonsuit on the cross-complaint for failure to produce it.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that a general denial of material allegations is sufficient to controvert a contractor’s licensure allegation and triggers § 7031(d)’s verified-certificate proof requirement.
- The court agreed the trial court properly excluded oral testimony offered as proof of licensure once § 7031(d) applied.
- The court reversed the nonsuit on Edwin’s cross-complaint, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying a brief continuance to obtain the verified certificate.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the cross-complaint; the jury verdict for Advantec on its complaint was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Business and Professions Code § 7031(a), a contractor seeking compensation must allege it was duly licensed throughout performance of the work.
- Under § 7031(d), when licensure is “controverted,” the contractor must prove licensure during performance by producing a verified certificate from the Contractors’ State License Board.
- A general denial under Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30(b)(1) places material allegations in issue and is sufficient to controvert a pleaded allegation of licensure for purposes of § 7031(d).
- When § 7031(d) applies, the verified certificate is the required method of proof; testimonial proof alone is insufficient.
- Denial of a reasonable, brief continuance may be an abuse of discretion when it effectively imposes a dispositive result based solely on absence of a readily obtainable statutorily required form of proof.

## Conclusion

A defendant’s general denial controverts a contractor’s licensure allegation and triggers § 7031(d)’s verified-certificate proof requirement, but a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a short continuance to obtain the certificate and then nonsuiting a cross-complaint solely for failure to produce it at trial.


Advantec Grp., Inc. v. Edwin's Plumbing Co., 153 Cal. App. 4th 621, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195 (Ct. App. 2007)