A homeowner's dispute over a Beverly Hills remodel has escalated into a legal battle with accusations of fraud and unlicensed contracting. Zale Design Studio filed a complaint against Mark Leevan in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County on May 18, 2013, seeking to recover unpaid invoices related to the remodeling project.
The case revolves around a contract between Mark Leevan and Linda Zale, operating as Zale Design Studio, for interior design services during the renovation of Leevan's home. Under their agreement, Zale was responsible for selecting items such as furniture, paint, carpet, tiles, and fixtures, while Leevan would reimburse her costs plus a 30% design fee. However, tensions arose when Leevan discovered discrepancies in Zale's billing. He found that she had billed him for an item she had not paid for and grew suspicious of other invoices. Consequently, he stopped paying her.
Zale subsequently sued Leevan to recover what she claimed were unpaid fees totaling $73,864.74. In response, Leevan argued that Zale had performed work requiring a contractor’s license under California law but did not possess one. According to Section 7031(a) of the Contractors State License Law (CSLL), unlicensed contractors are prohibited from recovering compensation for their services. Additionally, Leevan filed a cross-complaint seeking disgorgement of all payments made to Zale under Section 7031(b), alleging fraudulent overcharging under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
During the trial held in April 2022, evidence was presented regarding Zale’s role in the remodel and her interactions with subcontractors. Testimonies revealed that while Zale selected materials and designs for various aspects of the project—such as hardwood floors and window coverings—she did not supervise or direct construction activities that would necessitate a contractor’s license. The jury found that Zale had not engaged in any acts requiring such licensure and awarded her $64,000 on her breach of contract claim while denying any relief to Leevan on his claims.
Leevan appealed the decision on several grounds: arguing that evidence showed Zale acted as an unlicensed contractor; claiming that a mechanic’s lien recorded by Zale constituted an admission of acting as a contractor; asserting instructional errors regarding incidental services; and alleging improper closing arguments by Zale’s counsel.
The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding no prejudicial error in its proceedings or instructions given to the jury. The judgment also included an award for attorney’s fees amounting to $1,568,501 based on prevailing party provisions in their contract.
Representing parties included Cohen Williams LLP for Plaintiff/Cross-defendant/Respondent Linda Zale and Wright Kim Douglas ALC along with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP for Defendant/Cross-complainant/Appellant Mark Leevan. The case was presided over by Judge Craig D. Karlan under Case ID B324871 consolidated with B326780 and B328264.