HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al.

22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 08/20/2026 Mark Fickes

Proposed Ruling

Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will not receive the Labor Commissioner's Order, Decision, or Award as substantive proof of any disputed fact, and will not treat its findings as binding or entitled to deference. The Court declines, however, to bar all reference to the fact that the Order issued and that this appeal followed.

Background

Respondent/Plaintiff Servano Huitzil Quijada ("Plaintiff") brought a wage claim before the Labor Commissioner, contending that Appellants/Defendants Gogris Corporation and related entities, together with Mahesh Gogri and Shilpa Gogri (collectively, "Defendants"), misclassified him as an independent contractor rather than an employee. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 1.) On April 21, 2022, following a hearing, the Labor Commissioner issued an Order, Decision, or Award (the "ODA") finding that Plaintiff was an employee and awarding him $119,074.66 in unpaid wages, penalties, interest, liquidated damages, and waiting-time penalties. (ODA, Apr. 21, 2022.)

Defendants appealed the ODA to this Court under Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (a). The Notice of Appeal is dated May 10, 2022, and was electronically filed May 11, 2022. (Notice of Appeal.) The appeal is a trial de novo. The matter is set for a bench trial beginning August 24, 2026. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 1.)

Defendants move to exclude the ODA from trial. They ask the Court to bar not only the ODA itself but "any testimony, argument or reference regarding the ODA and findings contained therein." (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 1.) They advance three grounds: the ODA is irrelevant because the appeal is heard de novo; its admission would be unduly prejudicial and confusing under Evidence Code section 352; and it is inadmissible hearsay that has not been authenticated. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff does not defend the ODA's findings as evidence. He concedes that the Commissioner's factual findings do not bind the Court, are not entitled to deference, and cannot substitute for proof at trial. (Pl.'s Opp.) He opposes the motion only to the extent it would bar any acknowledgment of the ODA's existence, date, nature, and procedural effect, and he proposes a limited order permitting reference to those matters while excluding the findings as substantive proof. (Ibid.) In reply, Defendants maintain that the ODA is "completely irrelevant," that any reliance on it for its truth is hearsay, and that no proper purpose is served by referring to it at all. (Defs.' Reply.) 22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518 Legal Standard

Only relevant evidence is admissible. (Evid. Code, § 351.) Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Evid. Code, § 210.)

An appeal from the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 98.2 is heard de novo. (Lab. Code, § 98.2, subd. (a).) A hearing de novo is a new trial, not a review of the administrative decision. The Commissioner's decision is "entitled to no weight whatsoever," and the proceeding is "a trial anew in the fullest sense." (Post v. Palo/Haklar & Associates (2000) 23 Cal.4th 942, 948.) The trial court "hears the matter, not as an appellate court, but as a court of original jurisdiction, with full power to hear and determine it as if it had never been before the labor commissioner." (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1116-1117.)

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and it is inadmissible unless an exception applies. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) The Court may exclude evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will consume undue time or create a substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. (Evid. Code, § 352.)

California law distinguishes two different things a court may do with a prior tribunal's decision. A court may not treat as true the factual findings another tribunal made as a trier of fact. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-1569.) But that limit does not reach the separate, historical fact that the decision issued, that a hearing occurred, or that a ruling was made. (Ibid.)

Discussion

The motion presents a single question. To what extent may the ODA be used, or referred to, at the trial de novo. The answer has two parts. The ODA's findings may not serve as substantive proof. But the fact that the ODA issued may still be acknowledged for limited and proper purposes.

The ODA's Findings Carry No Evidentiary Weight

On the core question, Defendants are right, and Plaintiff agrees. This is a trial de novo. The Court decides for itself whether Plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor, on the evidence presented at trial and under the governing law. The Commissioner's resolution of that question earns no deference and no weight. (Post, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 948.) The Court will hear the dispute as though it had never been before the Commissioner. (Murphy, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1116-1117.)

It follows that the ODA's findings may not be used as substantive proof. Neither party may offer those findings for their truth, argue that the Commissioner was correct, or suggest that the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518 findings shift any burden or are entitled to deference. Offered for their truth, the findings would also be hearsay, and Plaintiff has laid no foundation for any exception. (Evid. Code, § 1200; see Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 1.) To that extent, the motion is well taken and is granted.

The Relief Requested Sweeps Too Far

Defendants do not stop at the findings. They ask the Court to bar every reference to the ODA, down to the fact that it exists. (Defs.' Mot. in Limine No. 1.) That request confuses two distinct things. That the ODA's findings carry no weight does not mean the ODA never happened. The de novo standard strips the administrative decision of evidentiary force. It does not erase the proceeding from the case's history. Indeed, the ODA is the reason this action exists. Labor Code section 98.2 makes the Commissioner's order the thing appealed, and the appeal the reason the matter is here. (Lab. Code, § 98.2, subd. (a); see Pl.'s Opp.)

California law marks the line the motion overlooks. A court may not accept the Commissioner's findings as true, but it may recognize the separate fact that the Commissioner made a decision and that this appeal followed. (Sosinsky, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1564-1569.) Barring all mention of the ODA would suppress that history, not merely its findings.

Section 352 does not require more. The statute guards against undue consumption of time, confusion of the issues, and the danger of misleading the jury. (Evid. Code, § 352.) This matter will be tried to the Court, so the concern about misleading a jury is absent, and a judge can note that an administrative proceeding occurred while giving its findings no substantive weight. Nor will limited reference to the ODA's existence and procedural posture consume meaningful time in a bench trial. The categorical exclusion Defendants seek is therefore broader than the de novo rule, the hearsay rule, or section 352 requires.

ORDER

Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Order, Decision, or Award of the Labor Commissioner dated April 21, 2022, and the factual findings, legal conclusions, and disposition contained in it, shall not be admitted or relied upon as substantive proof of any disputed fact at the trial de novo, shall not be offered for the truth of the matters asserted in them, and shall not be treated as binding on the Court or as entitled to deference or evidentiary weight. No party shall argue that the Commissioner's determination was correct or that it shifts any burden of proof.

2. The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks to exclude any and all reference to the ODA. The parties may refer to the existence, date, nature, and procedural effect of the ODA where relevant to explain the procedural history of this action, to identify the claims properly before the Court, or for another independently permissible purpose that does not offer the Commissioner's

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV011120: HUITZIL QUIJADA vs GOGRIS CORPORATION, et al. 08/24/2026 Hearing on Motion in Limine. in Department 518 disputed findings for their truth.

3. Nothing in this order limits the Court's authority to take judicial notice of the fact that the ODA was issued and that this appeal followed, subject to the rule that judicial notice of the existence of a ruling does not establish the truth of any disputed factual finding contained in it.