Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCP00072, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 24STCP00072    Hearing Date: March 20, 2025    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Elite Interactive Solutions

RESPONDING PARTY: None

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been filed. 

BACKGROUND

             Elite Interactive Solutions initiated this action on January 9, 2024 as an appeal of a Labor Commission award. Elite Interactive Solutions filed its Notice of Appeal on that date, along with a Notice of Posting and Posting of Appeal Bond [Labor Code § 98.2].

            On December 10, 2024, Elite Interactive Solutions filed the Joint Notice of Settlement for Court to Retain Jurisdiction, indicating that the entire case had been settled.

            On February 11, 2025, Elite Interactive Solutions submitted a request for dismissal and on February 21, 2025, the motion to release undertaking.

DISCUSSION

            “Within 10 days after service of notice of an order, decision, or award the parties may seek review by filing an appeal to the superior court, where the appeal shall be heard de novo. The court shall charge the first paper filing fee under Section 70611 of the Government Code to the party seeking review. The fee shall be distributed as provided in Section 68085.3 of the Government Code. A copy of the appeal request shall be served upon the Labor Commissioner by the appellant. For purposes of computing the 10-day period after service, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable.” (Lab. Code, § 98.2(a))  

Timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, and may not be excused on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co.¿(1982) 32 Cal.3d 831, 837.) 

Here the appellant is Elite Interactive Solutions which appealed the Order, Decision, or Award of the Labor Commissioner in State Case Number WCCMBS9277.  Elite Interactive Solutions posted an appeal bond identified by Bond No. 5073576, copy of which was filed with the Court on January 9, 2024, pursuant to the terms of Labor Code § 98.2 in the amount of Seventeen Thousand Dollars ($17,000).

“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. . . .” (Lab. Code, § 98.2(b).)  Here, the undertaking was posted by Elite Interactive Solutions as required. 

On February 14, 2025, on the request of Elite Interactive Solutions and based on a full settlement of the case, this Court dismissed the action.  Elite Interactive Solutions is now requesting that the undertaking now be released.  Labor Code § 98.2(b) states that, “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.”  (Cal Lab Code § 98.2.)

As the appeal has been settled and the case dismissed, the Court GRANTS the request to release the undertaking.

            Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Dated this 20th day of March 2025