Employer’s Appeal Of Labor Commissioner’s Order Dismissed For Failing To Post Appeal Bond

Issue

The California Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing an appeal from a Labor Commission order because the employer failed to post an appeal bond. (Williams v. FreedomCard, Inc., (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,217, Cal.App. 2 Dist., May 3, 2004))

Facts

The Labor Commissioner issued an order awarding unpaid wages to Caldwell Williams. The order was against Williams’ employer, FreedomCard, and its director and corporate officer, Wesley Buford. They filed an appeal in superior court, but did not file an appeal bond or undertaking and did not show they were indigent or unable to obtain sufficient sureties. The superior court dismissed the appeal, and FreedomCard and Buford asked the California Court of Appeal to review the dismissal.

Appellate Court Decision

Labor Code § 98.2 requires an employer who files a de novo appeal from an order of the Labor Commission to post an “undertaking” in the form of an appeal bond or a cash deposit. The superior court may excuse the filing of the undertaking if the appealing party shows it is indigent or unable to obtain sufficient sureties. Here, Buford made no claim and presented no evidence that he was indigent or unsuccessful in obtaining a bond or undertaking. Similarly, FreedomCard did not show even an attempt to contact a bonding or surety company.

The Court of Appeal therefore concluded the superior court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant relief from the statutory bond requirement or in dismissing the appeal.

Legal Alert Email Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.