#Joel tranter code
#Joel tranter trial

Lallande (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 421, 431.) The court's discretion is broad. State of California (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 664, 666 Alshafie v. We review dismissal of an appeal due to an employer's failure to post an undertaking under the abuse of discretion standard. In exercising its discretion, the court 'shall take into consideration all factors it deems relevant.

#Joel tranter code

(b)), section 995.240 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the case to proceed on the merits without an undertaking if the appellant can prove indigency and inability to obtain a bond. Proc., В§ 995.240.) Although the bond prerequisite is designed to ensure payment to the employee if judgment is entered for the employee or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed (В§ 98.2, subd. 'f the court determines that the principal is unable to give the bond because the principal is indigent and is unable to obtain sufficient sureties,' the court may exercise its discretion to waive the bond provision. In certain circumstances, section 995.240 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides an exception to the requirement of an undertaking. (b).) Thus, Frumkin's statutory right to judicial review in the superior court was conditioned on him either obtaining a bond or making a cash deposit. Section 98.2, subdivision (b), requires an employer who appeals an order of the State Labor Commissioner to 'post an undertaking with the reviewing court in the amount of the order, decision, or award.' The undertaking may consist of either an appeal bond issued by a licensed surety or a cash deposit.

#Joel tranter trial

On July 27, 2010, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Instead, Frumkin submitted additional declarations listing property he owned and statements from the bondsmen he had contacted. The trial court again continued the case to afford Frumkin additional time to obtain a bond. The trial court also noted a lack of evidence proving Frumkin's inability to obtain a bond, such as a completed application for a bond or paperwork showing a denial by a surety. The court said Frumkin's showing was inadequate because, although he described some financial losses, he did not describe all his assets or provide the financial information for his law firm.

The court continued the motion for one week.ДЄt the next hearing on the motion, the trial court found the declaration too conclusory to support Frumkin's claim of indigency. At the initial hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court provided Frumkin an opportunity to provide further facts supporting his claim of indigency, and told him specifically to demonstrate that he owned no other property. Frumkin supported his opposition with his declaration claiming loss of investments and property, ruined credit, cash resources of $5,000, and detailing his unsuccessful efforts to obtain a bond. Because Frumkin had not posted an undertaking, as required by section 98.2, subsection (b), Tranter filed a motion to dismiss.ДЇrumkin opposed the motion on the basis that he was indigent and unable to obtain a surety, and he asked the court to waive the bond requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240. (В§В§ 510, 2802, 98.1, 203.1 & 203.) The Labor Commissioner awarded Tranter $20,120.98.ДЇrumkin appealed the Labor Commissioner's decision to the superior court under section 98.2. Following his employment, Tranter filed a claim with the State Labor Commissioner alleging Frumkin failed to pay him overtime wages and expenses, and he sought interest and penalties. We affirm.ДЇrom Octoto August 4, 2008, Frumkin employed Tranter as an attorney.

Frumkin now argues the trial court's dismissal was an abuse of discretion and the appeal should proceed in the superior court. 1 When Frumkin was unable to post the required undertaking, the trial court dismissed the appeal. Frumkin challenged the award by appeal to the superior court under Labor Code section 98.2. The Labor Commissioner ordered Frumkin to pay more than $20,000 to Joel Tranter (Tranter) for several Labor Code violations. (Frumkin) appeals the trial court's decision to dismiss its appeal seeking de novo review of a decision of the state Labor Commissioner. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).