Contractors State Licensing Board v. Superior Court

BDE is a licensed C-10 electrical contractor. Labor Code section 108.2(a) requires individuals who perform work as electricians to be certified. Uncertified persons seeking the on-the-job experience necessary for certification may perform electrical work under the direct supervision of a certified electrician. Willful violations may result in the suspension or revocation of a C-10 license. The Contractors’ State License Board alleged that uncertified BDE employees performed work that required certification and that BDE trainees performed work without the required supervision. BDE argued that the Board’s interpretation of the Code was erroneous. An ALJ rejected BDE’s contention that “certified electricians are required only when a device is attached to the wires at the end of the electrical project,” and recommended revocation of BDE’s license. While the administrative proceeding was pending, BDE sought a judicial declaration defining the terms “electrician,” “electrical work,” and “direct supervision” as used in the statute or a declaration that the terms are unconstitutionally vague. The court overruled the Board’s demurrer. The court of appeal disagreed. Since the statutes provide BDE with an administrative remedy, it must exhaust that remedy before seeking redress in court. While statutory interpretation is ultimately a judicial function, BDE can seek a judicial interpretation in an action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. BDE failed to demonstrate either that exhaustion of its administrative remedy would be futile or that the Board cannot provide an adequate remedy. View "Contractors State Licensing Board v. Superior Court" on Justia Law