Hestand

Hestand v. Saunders

Good Law
101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 909·85 Cal. App. 4th 334
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 2001G024918California3,746 words

Opinion

Opinion

Andy L. Hestand, Rick A. Bishop and Fred M. Matthiesen (collectively "Hestand" except where clarity dictates they be considered individually) appeal from a judgment denying their petition for a peremptory writ of mandate. They sought to compel Marcy Saunders, as Labor Commissioner of California, [1] and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) which she heads, to process this complaint for overtime pay allegedly due under Wage Order 4-89. Hestand argues mandamus is the proper procedure to review an agency's interpretation of its regulations, he is covered by the wage order, and the trial court improperly considered parol evidence that it was not intended to apply to the "on-site construction" industry in which he works.

We agree that mandate lies, but conclude that Wage Order 4-89 was never intended to apply to the on-site construction industry. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment denying the writ.

Hestand and his colleagues were employed by Odebrecht Contractors of California, Inc. (Odebrecht), the general contractor engaged to construct the Seven Oaks Dam in San Bernardino County. Hestand and Bishop were mechanics; Matthiesen was a heavy equipment…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.