MARCO ANTONIO CHAVIRA, doing business as ADD ON POWER, a sole proprietorship, Plaintiff/Appellant,
ARMOR DESIGNS OF DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, dba ARMOR DESIGNS, INC.; and ARMOR DESIGNS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants/Appellees
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. No. CV2012-006204. The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge.
Marco Antonio Chavira, Phoenix, Plaintiff/Appellant.
Udall Shumway PLC, Mesa, By Joel E. Sannes, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees.
Presiding Judge Maurice Portley delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which Judge John C. Gemmill and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.
Maurice Portley, Judge
[¶1] Plaintiff Marco Antonio Chavira, doing business as Add On Power, challenges the summary judgment granted in favor of Armor Designs of Delaware, Inc., and Armor Designs, LLC (collectively, " Armor" ). He contends the superior court erred by precluding him from attempting to collect for any of the work he completed for Armor. Because Chavira is a licensed contractor, he had the right to maintain an action to recover payment for the work he performed for Armor pursuant to his license. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[¶2] Chavira, a licensed and bonded electrical contractor, registered with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors, was hired by Armor to disassemble equipment located at its Phoenix manufacturing plant and was paid in full. Shortly thereafter, Armor hired Chavira to reinstall the same equipment at its new manufacturing facility. Chavira performed the work.
[¶3] Chavira sought payment, but Armor refused to pay for any of the installation work. Chavira subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit,
negligent misrepresentation, and bad faith. After discovery, Armor moved for summary judgment, arguing that Chavira was barred from maintaining a lawsuit by Arizona Revised Statutes (" A.R.S." ) section 32-1153, because he had performed " significant work for which [he] had no license."
[¶4] The superior court granted Armor's motion and dismissed Chavira's complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.
[¶5] The sole issue is whether § 32-1153 bars Chavira from maintaining an action to recover any payment for work he performed if some of the work fell ...