Paniagua sought a "trial de novo" in superior court. To obtain that new trial, the employer must post a bond or cash payment (called an "undertaking") in the amount of the labor commissioner's award. The undertaking ensures the employee will be paid if the employer loses the appeal de novo and does not pay the adverse award.
Here's the thing - the "appeal" must be filed within 10 days of service of the Labor Commissioner's award (or 15 days if the award was served by mail). AND, the undertaking must be submitted as a "condition" of filing the appeal. So, employers must arrange for the undertaking quickly. That means there is little time to deliberate over whether to appeal.
So, Paniagua did not post an undertaking when it filed its appeal. Paniagua sought leave of court to submit the undertaking late, which the court granted.
Palagin appealed to the court of appeal, which decided the trial court had no jurisdiction to allow the filing of the undertaking late. Why such an inflexible rule? The court explained:
as long as a notice of appeal cannot be filed without an undertaking, the absence of an undertaking means the appeal does not come into existence, and thus there is no need for the employee to move to dismiss and no delay in obtaining a dismissal; further, by not allowing the posting deadline to be extended, the employer does not have time to hide or transfer assets.So, if you plan to appeal an adverse ruling of the labor commissioner, submit the undertaking on time or the right to appeal will be lost.
The case is Palagin v. Paniagua Construction, Inc. and the opinion is here.
