Patel

Patel v. Chavez

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 22, 2022B312985California3,382 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

From 2002 to 2016, Chavez worked as an on-site property manager of a hotel owned and/or operated by appellants. In October 2015, Chavez filed a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner’s office alleging that, for 14 years, appellants paid him less than minimum wage and engaged in other forms of wage theft. Appellants responded by filing a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking $10 million from Chavez, alleging he was an independent contractor who had

1 Both Labor Commission documents are captioned “order, decision, or award,” which courts refer to as an ODA (see, e.g., Corrales v. Bradstreet (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 33, 40), and this is the terminology utilized by the relevant statutes. We therefore employ this terminology as well. 2 We deny as moot Chavez’s motion to dismiss the appeal. To the extent Chavez’s motion addresses appellants’ listing in their notice of appeal an order compelling appellants to respond to postjudgment discovery, the motion is moot, because appellants have abandoned this challenge. To the extent the motion seeks dismissal of the appeal from the bond order and related judgment under the disentitlement doctrine,…

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.