The California Little Miller Act, the state version of the federal Miller Act, protects subcontractors and suppliers working on public construction projects in California. The law requires the use of payment bonds and performance bonds.
Payment bonds are financial guarantees that all entities involved with the project will be paid even if the principal contractor defaults; their purpose is to protect subcontractors and supplies. On the other hand, performance bonds ensure contractors complete the construction contract as specified. The California Little Miller Act has strict procedural requirements for claim enforcement; here is an overview of the process.
Understand Preliminary Notice Requirements
Before a subcontractor or supplier can file a California Little Miller Act claim, it must notify the general contractor, the public entity, and the surety within 20 days of starting to work on the project or supplying materials. This notice establishes a right to payment protection and intent to file a claim if necessary.
Obtain Bond Information
The general contractor and public entity will have the payment bond on file; subcontractors and suppliers should obtain their own copy of this document. The payment bond will include the bond terms, the amount covered, and the surety company that issued it.
Serve a Stop Notice
A subcontractor or supplier can serve a stop notice on the public entity as soon as a payment issue arises. A stop notice prevents the public entity from disbursing funds to the general contractor until the issue is resolved.
File a Claim Against the Payment Bond
The California Little Miller Act requires that a subcontractor or supplier file a claim against the payment bond within 90 days after the last work was performed or materials delivered. The claim must be filed with the surety company, and detailed information must be provided regarding the amount owed, the services or materials provided, and, ideally, a copy of the contract.
File a Lawsuit to Enforce the Claim
Unfortunately, filing a claim with the surety is not always enough, and filing a lawsuit is the only available recourse. The law outlines specific timeline requirements for following a lawsuit; the lawsuit must be filed within six months after the project is finished and accepted by the public entity. Navigating the timelines and procedural requirements of filing a lawsuit can be confusing, and you do not want to lose your right to claim on technicalities. If you need help filing a Miller Act Claim or an associated lawsuit, contact the attorneys at National Lien & Bond. These seasoned attorneys are well-versed in Miller Act claims, representing clients in California and on over 25,000 projects throughout the United States. National Lien & Bond attorneys have obtained over $9 billion in claims on behalf of their clients, with the average claim value at over $360,000. Contact National Lien & Bond today to resolve your dispute regarding your payment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What federal projects in California are covered by the Miller Act?
The federal Miller Act (40 U.S.C. §§ 3131-3134) covers ALL federal construction projects in California worth over $150,000, including: federal courthouses; military bases (Camp Pendleton, Edwards AFB, Travis AFB, Vandenberg, Naval Base San Diego); VA hospitals (West LA, Long Beach, San Diego, Palo Alto, San Francisco); postal facilities; federal land improvements (national parks, BLM land); federally-funded research facilities (e.g., Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley); and other federal projects. California state mechanics lien law does NOT apply to federal projects — only the Miller Act controls.
Who can recover under the Miller Act on California federal projects?
Under 40 U.S.C. § 3133(a), recovery on a federal Miller Act payment bond is available to: (1) every first-tier subcontractor in direct contract with the prime; (2) every second-tier sub-subcontractor and supplier in direct contract with a first-tier subcontractor. Third-tier and more remote claimants are barred (see Clifford F. MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Calvin Tomkins Co., 322 U.S. 102 (1944)). Sub-tier claimants must serve the 90-day notice under § 3133(b)(2) to preserve bond rights.
What is the deadline for the 90-day notice on California federal projects?
Under 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(2), sub-tier claimants on federal Miller Act projects must serve written notice on the prime contractor within 90 DAYS after the date the claimant last furnished labor or materials. The notice must state with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the labor or materials were furnished. The notice must be served by certified mail with return receipt OR personal delivery — first-class mail is insufficient. Missing the 90-day deadline bars sub-tier bond recovery. Direct first-tier subcontractors are exempt from the 90-day notice but still must file suit within 1 year.
Where do I file a Miller Act suit for a California federal project?
Under 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(3), Miller Act suits must be filed in the U.S. District Court for the district where the contract was performed. California has four federal districts: NORTHERN DISTRICT (San Francisco — Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate); EASTERN DISTRICT (Sacramento, Fresno); CENTRAL DISTRICT (Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Ana); SOUTHERN DISTRICT (San Diego). Filing in the wrong district is a jurisdictional defect that may bar the claim. National Lien & Bond's California federal Miller Act network knows the correct filing locations.
What is the deadline to file a Miller Act suit in California federal court?
Under 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(4), Miller Act suits must be commenced WITHIN ONE YEAR after the last date the claimant furnished labor or materials. This is a strict jurisdictional deadline — late suits are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The 90-day notice requirement (for sub-tier claimants under § 3133(b)(2)) is separate and earlier. Direct first-tier subs are exempt from the 90-day notice but still must sue within one year. National Lien & Bond's deadline-tracking system monitors both deadlines for every active California federal Miller Act claim.
Can I recover attorney's fees on a California federal Miller Act claim?
The federal Miller Act itself does NOT contain a fee-shifting provision — the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed in F.D. Rich Co. v. United States ex rel. Industrial Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116 (1974) that the American Rule applies absent contract or statute. However, attorney's fees ARE recoverable when: (1) the subcontract or supply agreement contains an enforceable fee-shifting clause (Ninth Circuit recognizes contractual fee-shifting against the surety on Miller Act claims); (2) California state-law contract claims are joined with the Miller Act claim and California fee-shifting applies; (3) the surety engages in bad-faith claim handling.
How does National Lien & Bond help with California federal Miller Act claims?
National Lien & Bond pursues federal Miller Act payment bond claims on California federal construction projects for unpaid contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. For Illinois-based engagements, Hal Emalfarb's firm at Emalfarb Swan and Bain handles strategic coordination. For California federal Miller Act matters, NLB connects unpaid contractors with vetted California construction-payment attorneys who handle the 90-day notice service under 40 U.S.C. § 3133(b)(2), Miller Act suit filing in the appropriate U.S. District Court, and fee recovery under available theories. NLB's 50-state deadline-tracking system prevents the missed-deadline forfeitures that cause most California federal Miller Act losses. Contact NLB for a free initial consultation.