I contracted with an entity to do some construction work on my property. (1) While one of the owners has a license under his name, the entity itself does not appear to have a license. Does that comply with CSLB requirements, or does the contracting entity need its own license? (2) Also, I suspect they used subs who are unlicensed. Assuming that's true, would that mean I don't have to pay the GC with whom I contracted? Thanks!
In general the contractor you signed the contract with has to be the one that is licensed, or at least substantially compliant with the licensing requirements. Look at Business and Professions code section 7026, and case law "Lewis & Queen v. N.M. Ball & Sons" on google scholar.
A lot more information is needed to determine if you have to pay your contractor or not. In general, if the contractor is licensed, passing the inspections, and there is no dispute as to the quality of the work, then the homeonwer should be paying the prime contractor. There are exceptions in certain circumstances, but the money should be held in trust if withholding payment. A construction law attorney will need to review your documents before making a recommendation.