Jones v. Basich
| Decision Date | 09 January 1986 |
| Citation | Jones v. Basich, 222 Cal.Rptr. 26, 176 Cal.App.3d 513 (Cal. App. 1986) |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1060 Vernon E. JONES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rodney N. BASICH et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. F004865 |
James M. Radnich, Los Angeles, Fullerton, Lang, Richert & Patch and Charles M. Barrett, Fresno, for defendants and appellants.
Price & Welsh and Brett L. Price, Bakersfield, for plaintiff and respondent.
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr., State Labor Com'r, San Francisco, and H. Thomas Cadell, Jr., San Diego, as amicus curiae, upon the request of the Court of Appeal.
This case presents the novel question of whether a defendant-employer against whom a wage claim has been filed with the Labor Commissioner must appear and participate at the hearing before the Labor Commissioner in order to preserve his right to appeal to the courts.
Defendants appeal the judgment of the superior court dismissing defendants' appeal from an order of the Labor Commissioner.
In December 1983, plaintiff commenced an action before the Labor Commissioner to collect amounts which he claimed he was owed by defendants in accordance with the provisions of LABOR CODE SECTION 981 et seq. Defendants answered the complaint.
On May 7, 1984, after proper notice to both plaintiff and defendants, a hearing was held in connection with plaintiff's complaint before the Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff appeared with counsel. Several witnesses appeared and testified, and documentary evidence was introduced in support of plaintiff's claim.
Defendants failed to appear or participate in any manner in the hearing before the Labor Commissioner.
Thereafter, on or about May 22, 1984, Barry L. Davis, hearing officer for the Labor Commissioner, issued the decision and award of the Labor Commissioner, concluding that plaintiff was entitled to payment for the full amount of wages or compensation and subsistence claimed and was entitled to certain additional wages pursuant to section 203. The total amount of the award was $34,287.50.
Defendants appealed the Labor Commissioner's decision to the superior court.
Plaintiff then filed a motion to dismiss the defendants' appeal on the grounds that defendants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for the bringing of their appeal. The superior court granted plaintiff's motion, stating, "... Defendants have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by failing to appear, participate and present any evidence, defense, authority or argument at the administrative hearing before the Labor Commissioner, ..."
Section 98 provides:
Subdivision (a) provides that within 30 days of filing of the complaint notice shall be given to the parties as to whether a hearing will be held.
Subdivision (b) provides that when a hearing is set a copy of the complaint, together with notice of the time and place of the hearing, be served on the parties.
Subdivision (c) provides that within 10 days after service of the notice and the complaint a defendant may file an answer. Under subdivision (d), no pleading other than the complaint and answer shall be required.
It is thus clear, under the plain words of the statute, that a defendant may elect not to file an answer and appear at the hearing to contest the claim or, conversely, elect to file an...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Oto, L. L.C. v. Kho
...Code, § 98, subd. (f).) Although an application to the Labor Commissioner need not precede a de novo appeal (see Jones v. Basich (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 513, 518, 222 Cal.Rptr. 26 ), this administrative recourse must be sought before a motion to vacate the commissioner’s decision. Section 98,......
-
Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.
...but rather is entitled to abandon, change, or add defenses not brought before the Labor Commissioner (see Jones v. Basich (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 513, 518-519, 222 Cal.Rptr. 26), so may an employee raise additional wage-related claims in the de novo Accordingly, we hold that the Court of Appe......
-
Corrales v. Bradstreet
...entitled to a new trial even if the employer declined to participate at all in the administrative hearing. (Jones v. Basich (1986) 176 Cal. App.3d 513, 517-518, 222 Cal.Rptr. 26.) Since the employer has the ability to render the Commissioner's decision inconsequential, it cannot be said tha......
-
Gonzalez v. Beck
...the trial court heard and denied defendants' motion to set aside the judgment. Relying on section 98(f) and Jones v. Basich (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 513, 222 Cal.Rptr. 26 (Jones), the trial court concluded that "[t]here [was] no evidence of defendants' compliance with that statute, and they ar......