Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCP03085, Date: 2024-03-13 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org.  Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.



           
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the  matter off calendar.

                       
  

            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court. 
 

 

            If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 21STCP03085    Hearing Date: March 13, 2024    Dept: 71

Jimmy Wang v. Junhua Chen

LASC Case. No. 21STCP03085

Jonhua Chen applies ex parte for an order releasing the bond posted by Jimmy Wang in this matter.  Mr. Chen obtained an order from the Labor Commissioner that Jimmy Wang was pay Mr. Chen $49,109.40.  Mr. Wang appealed that order by filing this Notice of Appeal.  In order to do so, Mr. Wang was required to post a bond in the amount of the Labor Commissioner’s award.  Labor Code 98.2 states, in relevant part,

“(b)  As a condition to filing an appeal pursuant to this section, an employer shall first post an undertaking with the reviewing court in the amount of the order, decision, or award. The undertaking shall consist of an appeal bond issued by a licensed surety or a cash deposit with the court in the amount of the order, decision, or award. The employer shall provide written notification to the other parties and the Labor Commissioner of the posting of the undertaking. The undertaking shall be on the condition that, if any judgment is entered in favor of the employee, the employer shall pay the amount owed pursuant to the judgment, and if the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed without entry of judgment, the employer shall pay the amount owed pursuant to the order, decision, or award of the Labor Commissioner unless the parties have executed a settlement agreement for payment of some other amount, in which case the employer shall pay the amount that the employer is obligated to pay under the terms of the settlement agreement. If the employer fails to pay the amount owed within 10 days of entry of the judgment, dismissal, or withdrawal of the appeal, or the execution of a settlement agreement, a portion of the undertaking equal to the amount owed, or the entire undertaking if the amount owed exceeds the undertaking, is forfeited to the employee.”

Under the plain language of section 98.2, subdivision (b), if an appeal of a Labor Commissioner’s award is dismissed and the award not paid within 10 days of the dismissal, any  undertaking equal to the amount awarded by the Labor Commissioner “is forfeited to the employee.” Tabarrejo v. Superior Court (2104) 232 Cal. App. 4th 849, 868.

Mr. Wang’s appeal of the Labor Commissioner’s award was dismissed on November 21, 2023.  Mr. Chen has declared that Mr. Wang has not since paid the Labor Commissioner’s award.  The Court therefore finds that Mr. Wang’s bond is forfeited to Mr. Chen and the Court orders the bond released.