Today the Judicial Council of California is in a substantial compliance hearing with Jacobs Engineering and their various entities in San Francisco Superior Court. But what we’d like to call your attention to is the deep pockets justice that is happening behind the scenes because Jacobs cannot win on the merits of their case.
Framing it as a “technical violation” in spite of the overcharging that many bore witness to by obtaining other estimates, Jacobs Engineering is feverishly at work in Sacramento with a custom piece of legislation that would completely reverse any judgement against them. That piece of legislation is AB-1793 is being sponsored by none other than Jacobs Engineering Group and appears to have no opposition.
Worse, it has been sailing through committees unopposed and was re-referred to the committee on the judiciary where the author withdrew the legislation from hearing on June 20, 2016 probably in light of the now underway substantial compliance hearing.
Taken from the initial assembly judiciary committee analysis:
In Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Project Management, Co., the appellate court acknowledged that penalizing construction firms for “a technical transgression only indirectly serves the CSLL’s larger purpose of preventing the delivery of services by unqualified contractors.” As a result of this decision the firm nearly lost nearly $20 million in revenue resulting from the work performed between the lapse of the license and a renewal of the construction contract under the new subsidiary’s name.”
The belief that this was an innocent technical transgression of licensure is a crock.
While Jacobs might have indeed reorganized, the feet on the ground were passing out estimates, literature, brochures, business cards and making false representations of an unlicensed joint venture between Jacobs and ABM, which is why all of the estimates, literature, brochures, business cards and other materials combined the Jacobs and ABM’s trademarked logos. None of those materials had a contractors state license number on them and many didn’t even have an official business address. That my friends is not an innocent technical transgression.
Wouldn’t you like to be able to lobby your way out of liability with our state legislature?