Rosson v. Carr CA2/6

Filed 8/21/24 Rosson v. Carr CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SCOTT ROSSON, 2d Crim. No. B331979 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2023- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00575394-CU-BC-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

KIMBERLY CARR,

Defendant and Respondent.

Scott Rosson appeals from the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained the demurrer to his first amended complaint (FAC) without leave to amend. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Rosson filed a complaint in propria persona against Kimberly Carr seeking compensation for remodeling her residence. He attached an invoice seeking $388,283 for labor performed for the remodel and alleged: “Ms. Carr, knowing she had no way to pay for my labor, promised the house would be left to me as beneficiary in her Trust.” Carr demurred on the ground that the lawsuit was barred because Rosson was not a licensed

contractor. (Bus. & Prof. Code,1 § 7031.) The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Rosson then obtained counsel and filed an FAC for breach of contract, fraud, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. It alleged: Rosson had been a general contractor but his license became inactive in 2016. He met Carr in 2018 and they “entered into a romantic dating relationship.” In 2019 Rosson moved into her house and they resided there together. In exchange for Rosson remodeling the house, Carr “agreed to add Plaintiff as a co-beneficiary with her to the Trust” to make him “a co-owner of the Home so as to allow him to protect his interest in his labor.” Rosson alleged that Carr added him as a co-beneficiary on the Trust. If Carr predeceased Rosson, he could live in the house for one year. The FAC alleged that Rosson worked on Carr’s house between 2019 and 2022. When their dating relationship ended in September 2022, Carr removed him as a beneficiary and did not compensate him for his labor. The FAC sought monetary damages and restitution for the value of the labor provided. Attached to the FAC was an invoice for $401,146.40 itemizing numerous services Rosson provided, including installing new pipes, a HVAC system, a new roof, siding, flooring, electrical system, and windows, among other work. Carr demurred to the FAC on various grounds, including that Rosson was barred from bringing an action for compensation because he was an unlicensed contractor (§ 7031). Rosson responded that he was not seeking compensation for his labor,