Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 25STCP00630, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCP00630    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 86

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Date:               4/17/25 (1:30 PM)

Case:               Gilberto Rodriguez v. California Court of Appeals (25STCP00630)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition filed on February 19, 2025 by petitioner Gilberto Rodriguez is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

On February 19, 2025, petitioner Gilberto Rodriguez in pro per initiated this action by filing two documents denominated as “Petition for Review,” relating to two Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board cases: “L.A.W.C.A.B. case # ADJ3464275, ADJ6958747.”

On March 11, 2025, based on what petitioner set forth in his two “Petition for Review” documents, the Court interpreted this action as a Petition for Review of matters from the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board Court. (3/11/25 Minute Order at 1.) In light of this interpretation, the Court also issued an OSC as to why the present matter should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Labor Code § 5950. (Ibid.) The Court permitted any response to be filed on or before April 10, 2025. (Ibid.)

Labor Code § 5950 states, in relevant part: “Any person affected by an order, decision, or award of the appeals board may, within the time limit, specified in this section, apply to the Supreme Court or to the court of appeal for the appellate district in which he resides, for a writ of review, for the purpose of inquiring into and determining the lawfulness of the original order, decision, or award . . .”

On April 10, 2025, petitioner filed with the Court a 215-page document denominated as “15 Exhibits.” Included within this document is a 14-page, signed statement. Under the section entitled “Abbreviated,” petitioner conveys the following information: (1) petitioner’s worker’s compensation appeal was dismissed in Los Angeles; (2) the petition for reconsideration was never reviewed by the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board in San Francisco; (3) the Court of Appeal dismissed petitioner’s writ of review; and (4) the California Supreme Court also dismissed petitioner’s case. Upon review of petitioner’s “15 Exhibits” filing, it appears that petitioner attempted seek writ of review with the Court of Appeal, but he claims that he received incorrect information from court employees regarding his obligation to submit the correct forms. Ultimately, his petition with the Court of Appeal was dismissed as having been untimely filed.  The California Supreme Court, in turn, considered petitioner’s “Application for Relief from Default” and petition for review and denied them.  It thus appears that petitioner has already sought review in the proper venues but did not receive the relief he sought.

As to why petitioner filed the instant matter with the Los Angeles County Superior Court, petitioner acknowledges that “the superior court cannot do anything for me” but nonetheless proceeded to file it here based on unspecified advice that he received from the internet. Irrespective of whatever advice petitioner may have received from online resources, it does not change the fact that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision issued by the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board pursuant to Labor Code § 5950.

While petitioner has proceeded to represent himself in this action and his prior attempts in seeking review, “‘such a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, [self-represented] litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. [Citations.]” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247; Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 524, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 604 [“Although plaintiffs appear in this court without counsel, that does not entitle them to special treatment”].) Therefore, because petitioner improperly filed the underlying petition with the Court, it is subject to dismissal. 

Accordingly, because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s Petition for Review from the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board Court, the petition is dismissed.