Chilpa

INTRODUCTION

Respondents George Chilpa and Daniel Lusk are former employees of appellants American Concrete Polishing Co., ACP Blason, LLC, and Blason Industries, Inc. (collectively ACP). Following their termination, Chilpa and Lusk brought wage and hour claims against ACP before the Labor Commissioner, who issued decisions in their favor. ACP appealed both decisions to the trial court, which held a 1 joint bench trial on Chilpa’s and Lusk’s claims. In its opening trial brief, ACP predicted the evidence would show Chilpa and Lusk each worked outside California for at least one month and argued California law did not apply to their alleged out-of-state work. Lusk testified that aside from a single day’s work in Nevada, he worked exclusively in California. The record does not reveal whether Chilpa testified about any out-of-state work.

1 “Although denominated an ‘appeal,’ the proceeding in the trial court is de novo. It is a new trial in the fullest sense; i.e., the Commissioner’s decision is ‘entitled to no weight whatsoever’ and the facts presented to the trial court may include entirely new evidence.” (Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group…