Naidu v. Superior Court

Petitioners, Jimmy and Uma Naidu, challenged a trial court order preventing them from using their licenses from the Contractors’ State Licensing Board (CSLB) as a condition of bail. Petitioners allegedly sold at least one of their business licenses to Raj Suri, whose own CSLB license was suspended, and then failed to supervise Suri despite retaining the status of “Responsible Managing Employee” in CSLB’s records. CSLB initiated an administrative proceeding to suspend or revoke petitioners’ business licenses. Petitioners were also defendants in a prosecution charging them with fraudulent use of a contractor’s license, and conspiracy, one of which is a felony. Prior to petitioners’ arraignment, the CSLB filed a request that the trial court suspend petitioners’ business licenses from the CSLB as a condition of bail. Petitioners filed written opposition to CSLB’s request and argued against the license suspension at the bail hearing. Nevertheless, the trial court released petitioners on their own recognizance (O.R.) but ordered their CSLB licenses suspended. Petitioners argue to the Court of Appeal that the trial court had no authority to suspend their CSLB licenses as a condition of O.R. release because this order infringed on their due process rights. They also contended the scope of the order containing the probation conditions constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the license suspension could last beyond the conclusion of any criminal proceedings, even if petitioners are acquitted. Because the Court of Appeal agreed with the first premise, it did not reach the second. View "Naidu v. Superior Court" on Justia Law