Williams v. FREEDOMCARD, INC.

California Court of Appeal May 3, 2004 No. B162880Published

Before: Boren

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an employer's right to a de novo appeal of a Labor Commissioner's wage award is conditioned upon posting a bond, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the appeal when the appellants failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for a waiver based on indigency and inability to obtain a bond.

Issues

Whether an employer must post a bond to appeal a Labor Commissioner's wage award de novo.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a waiver of the bond requirement where the appellants failed to prove indigency and an inability to obtain a bond.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the right of an employer to seek de novo judicial review in the superior court of a Labor Commissioner’s order, decision or award is conditioned on the necessary prerequisite that the employer post a bond or undertaking”

“the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in declining to grant relief from the statutory bond requirement.”

Opinion

BOREN, P. J.

Wesley Buford and FreedomCard, Inc., of which Buford is a director and corporate officer, complain that the State’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement erred in holding Buford personally hable (via joint and several liability) for unpaid wages owed to Caldwell Williams. However, in attempting to appeal de novo to the superior court from an administrative order, Buford and FreedomCard failed to post a bond, as required by Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (b).

Moreover, Buford did not claim and FreedomCard could not claim indigency, and neither showed an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a bond, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240 to obtain relief from the bond requirement.

Accordingly, since no bond was posted and the statutory requirements for relief from posting a bond were not satisfied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellants’ appeal de novo from the order of the Labor Commissioner awarding Williams $81,000 in earned but unpaid wages (plus penalties and interest).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

In November of 2001, Williams filed a claim for unpaid wages, interest, and statutory penalties with the State Labor Commissioner. After a formal administrative hearing (§ 98, subd. (a)), the Labor Commissioner in June of 2002 issued an order awarding Williams three years of earned but unpaid wages totaling $81,000, plus over $6,000 in interest and over $4,000 in penalties. The award reflected that the company which had employed Williams, FreedomCard, and the company’s director and corporate officer, Buford, were “jointly and severally liable.”

FreedomCard and Buford appealed the award by filing a notice of appeal with the superior court, where the matter would be heard de novo, pursuant to

[613]

section 98.2, subdivision (a). However, neither FreedomCard nor Buford posted a bond or undertaking with the superior court, as required by section 98.2, subdivision (b). Williams then exercised his right to representation by the Labor Commissioner’s legal staff (§ 98.4) at the de novo hearing.

Williams v. FREEDOMCARD, INC.

AI Brief

BOREN, P. J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief