Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP02164, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCP02164 Hearing Date: October 31, 2024 Dept: 86
DEMURRER TO PETITION
Date: 10/31/24
(1:30 PM)
Case: Bryant Farnham v. State
of California, Department of Industrial Relations (24STCP02164)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Real Party in Interest City of Riverside’s UNOPPOSED Demurrer
to Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus is SUSTAINED.
Petitioner is challenging the Workers’ Compensation Appeal
Board’s denial of a “request for a status conference that included: discovery,
as a principal issue, on a declaration of readiness to proceed, as evidence by
order deferring action of petition for dismissal of claim.” (Pet. at 5:12-20; see
also Pet. at 18:9-17.)
Labor Code § 5955 unambiguously states: “No court of this
state, except the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal to the extent herein
specified, has jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct, or annul any order,
rule, decision, or award of the appeals board, or to suspend or delay the
operation or execution thereof, or to restrain, enjoin, or interfere with the
appeals board in the performance of its duties but a writ of mandate shall lie
from the Supreme Court or a court of appeal in all proper cases.” (See also Lab.
Code § 5950 [allowing person affected by order of appeals board to apply to
Supreme Court or court of appeal for the appellate district in which the person
resides].) Put simply, Labor Code § 5955 grants only the Supreme Court and the
Courts of Appeal with the jurisdiction to review orders and decisions of the
Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Accordingly, this Court—the Superior Court
of California—does not have jurisdiction over the matters set forth in the
operative petition.
The demurrer is SUSTAINED. The jurisdictional defect set
forth above does not appear capable of being remedied by amendment. However,
before denying leave to amend, the Court will hear from petitioner as to how
the identified defects in the petition might reasonably be cured.