Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 23STCP03518, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP03518    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendants Realistic Development Corp. and Bernd Osswald’s Motion to Waive Bond Requirement is DENIED.

I.       MOTION TO WAIVE BOND REQUIREMENT

Decisions and awards of the Labor Commissioner can be appealed to the superior court to be heard de novo. (Lab. Code § 98.2, subd. (a).) As a condition of filing such an appeal, the employer must “first post an undertaking with the reviewing court in the amount of the order, decision, or award,” in order to secure the award to the employee in the event the employer’s appeal is lost. (Lab. Code § 98.2, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure § 995.240 states:

The court may, in its discretion, waive a provision for a bond in an action or proceeding and make such orders as may be appropriate as if the bond were given, if the court determines that the principal is unable to give the bond because the principal is indigent and is unable to obtain sufficient sureties, whether personal or admitted surety insurers. In exercising its discretion the court shall take into consideration all factors it deems relevant, including but not limited to the character of the action or proceeding, the nature of the beneficiary, whether public or private, and the potential harm to the beneficiary if the provision for the bond is waived.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 994.240.)

Defendants and Appellants Realistic Development Corp. and Bernd Osswald (Defendants) seek relief from the bond requirement of Labor Code § 98.2 which would, based on the award decided against them by the Labor Commissioner, require them to post a bond or undertaking in the amount of $14,741.56 (for the corporation) and $11,701.04 (for Osswald himself). (Motion at p. 1.) Defendants argue that the corporation “has no fixed assets other than office furniture and office equipment including computers,” and a copy of its bank account statement reveals it has only $2,734.56 with which to post bond. (Motion Exh. A.) Osswald presents his own bank statement, showing that he has a balance of $13,581.59. (Motion Exh. B.)

No relief from the bond requirement is appropriate. Osswald’s evidence reveals sufficient funds to post the bond in the amount required of him. Respondent also presents evidence in the form of tax assessor records revealing that Osswald owns real property in West Hollywood with an assessed value of $542,926.00. (Nasser Decl. Exh. 4.)

Nor may Realistic Development seek relief from the bond requirement, for two independent reasons. First, the company is proceeding without counsel: “[U]nder a long-standing common law rule of procedure, a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145.) Second, “it is well settled that a corporation is not a “person” for the purposes of establishing indigency, at least in the analogous context of obtaining in forma pauperis status to dispense with federal requirements as to filing fees, costs and security.” (Williams v. Freedomcard, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 609, 615.)

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.