Pizarro v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.

California Court of Appeal Sep 18, 1967 No. Civ. 24747Published

Before: Shoemaker

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The superior court lacks jurisdiction to stay, enjoin, or otherwise interfere with the execution of an Industrial Accident Commission award, as such authority is reserved exclusively to the commission and appellate courts under Labor Code section 5955.

Issues

Does a superior court have jurisdiction to enjoin the execution of a judgment entered upon an Industrial Accident Commission award?

Disposition. writ of prohibition issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the superior court, which has no jurisdiction to stay or modify any proceedings under the award.”

“superior courts have no jurisdiction to review or otherwise interfere with the operation of any order of the Industrial Accident Commission.”

SHOEMAKER. P. J.

On July 27, 1961, the Industrial Accident Commission made special findings in regard to petitioner’s claim against several defendants, including the real

[417]

party "in interest. The commission found that a compromise and release, approved by order of July 29, 1960, relieved all defendants from further liability with the exception of the real party in interest. Petitioner was awarded the sum of $4,461.86 plus $500 attorney’s fees, reasonable future medical and surgical expenses, together with interest thereon at the rate of 7 percent from the date of the award.

On June 18, 1964, the respondent court entered judgment for the sum of $4,961.86, which included attorney’s fees, plus accrued interest of $1,008.41 and future medical expenses. A writ of execution was obtained in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County on April 14, 1967. directing the Sheriff of Sutter County to levy pursuant to instructions. The sheriff so levied and set a date for the sale of the real party’s interest in certain property.

On May 16, 1967, respondent issued a restraining order enjoining petitioner and the sheriff temporarily from proceeding with the execution. On June 30, 1967, the respondent, in a memorandum decision, stayed and enjoined the execution as to all sums exceeding the sum of $1,125 plus interest thereon from December 12,1960 to June 30, 1967. The court so acted after finding an agreement existed between the parties for the settlement of all the plaintiff’s rights under the Industrial Accident Commission award for the total sum of $2,500

On July 13, 1967, the petition for a writ of prohibition was filed with the court

The respondent court observes in its memorandum decision that the motion involved an issue in an uncharted area. However, the few eases in the area, combined with the relevant provisions of the Labor Code, demonstrate the respondent erred when it concluded it had the requisite jurisdiction to enjoin the execution.

This case is resolved by Labor Code, section 5955

Pizarro v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.

AI Brief

SHOEMAKER. P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief