Beware of Inadvertent Judicial Admissions, Plaintiff’s Allegation Deemed a Judicial Admission
Plaintiff homeowner sued a contractor for improper work, alleging (among other things) that the contractor is/was licensed.
At trial, plaintiff homeowner’s lawyer demanded that the contractor provide a verified certificate from the California State Contractors License Board confirming proper licensure, despite the allegation of proper licensure in the complaint.
The trial court ruled that the lack of the certificate was fatal to the contractor’s case, so California Business & Professions Code section 7031 required disgorgement of payments received by the contractor.
The appellate court reversed, ruling that plaintiff homeowner’s complaint alleging that the contractor was licensed meant that licensure was not “controverted” (per the statutory language), but had been judicially admitted. (Womack v. Lovell, et al. (2015) 237 Cal. App. 4th 772.)
No doubt, plaintiff’s complaint was boilerplate in certain regards, but boilerplate may be judicial admission. So, be careful what you allege!
The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Reid & Hellyer, APC or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.