A Fairfax restaurant hired a rent-a-cop company to provide security services. When the restaurant and the contractor had a dispute over payment for those services, the security company sued. The contractor obtained a default judgment against the restaurant, and instituted garnishment proceedings. A year later, the underlying judgment against the restaurant was vacated.
The contractor sued again, claiming it was entitled to even more than the $16,000-plus it got through garnishing the restaurant’s bank account. The contractor based its claim on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. Not so fast, said Fairfax Circuit Judge Kathleen A. MacKay.
The contractor, Urban Protective Services, “could not contract to engage in private security services as it was not licensed as required by” Virginia Code § 9.1-139(A), the judge said. The contract was illegal as a matter of law, MacKay said. Fairfax Judge Michael P. McWeeny followed up by granting summary judgment for the restaurant in Urban Protective Services v. Great Latin Restaurants LLC.