Valdez

Valdez v. Himmelfarb

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 1261·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1811·2006 Daily Journal DAR 15253·51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195·71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1574
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 20, 2006B184281California5,239 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

An employer who failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance as required by law is being sued by a former employee for personal injury, unfair competition and declaratory relief. Plaintiff Elias Valdez claims he was injured in the course of his employment as a cook, janitor, dishwasher and gardener at defendants’ Malibu restaurant. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not dispute Valdez’s allegation they failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for their employees. Rather, defendants contended Valdez’s causes of action for negligence and declaratory relief were barred by the one-year statute of limitations in effect at the time of his injury and his unfair competition cause of action failed to include a prayer for relief within the trial court’s jurisdiction. The trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion and sanctioned Valdez and his attorneys jointly in the sum of $54,601 for bringing the action in bad faith.

Valdez filed a timely appeal from the judgment for defendants but no appeal was filed on behalf of Valdez or his attorneys from the sanction order.

As we shall explain, the trial court committed prejudicial error in its analysis of…

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.