Department of Industrial Relations v. Davis Moreno Construction, Inc.
193 Cal. App. 4th 560
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pacific and Davis challenged a Tulare County judgment entered under Labor Code 1742, arguing the judgment was filed in the wrong county and was void, and Davis also contended extrinsic fraud.
- Labor Commissioner issued a December 3, 2008 civil wage and penalty assessment; final order sought review but neither defendant timely sought review, and Tulare County Superior Court entered judgment on February 11, 2009.
- Pacific sought to vacate under CCP 473 and 1742(d) alleging improper venue; Davis sought vacatur and relief on extrinsic fraud grounds.
- Trial court denied both motions, relying on Pressler v. Bren Co. and Maynard v. Brandon to hold no jurisdiction to grant relief; it also deemed the Tulare judgment not void because defendants had an interest in construction funds in Tulare County.
- On appeal, the court reversed as to Davis on the extrinsic fraud claim, and affirmed as to Pacific; the court held 1742(d) allows filing in Tulare County where work occurred, and remanded for merits on Davis’s extrinsic fraud claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic fraud relief is available under 1742 | Davis asserts relief exists for extrinsic fraud under 1742. | Pacific argues no relief beyond 473 or jurisdictional limits; Davis’s claim is unsupported. | Relief for extrinsic fraud is available; remand for merits. |
| Whether the Tulare County entry complied with 1742(d) as proper venue | Davis and Pacific contend Tulare was improper because they lacked place of business there. | DLSE and the state contend Tulare County was a valid place of business for purposes of 1742(d). | Tulare County qualifies as a place of business for 1742(d); venue proper in Tulare. |
| Whether the project site constitutes a place of business for venue purposes | Project site was not a fixed place of business for either appellant. | Project site in Tulare County constitutes a place of business under 1742(d). | The Multi-Use and Administration Building project in Tulare County is a place of business for both appellants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co., 32 Cal.3d 831 (Cal. 1982) (limits on relief under certain Labor Commissioner procedures; discussed as controlling but distinguishable)
- Maynard v. Brandon, 36 Cal.4th 364 (Cal. 2005) (discussion of 473 relief; distinguishable from extrinsic fraud context)
- City and County of San Francisco v. Cartagena, 35 Cal.App.4th 1061 (Cal. App. 1995) (extrinsic fraud principle: essence is deprivation of day in court)
- Moghaddam v. Bone, 142 Cal.App.4th 283 (Cal. App. 2006) (extrinsic fraud relief under inherent equity power; void judgments)
- Lusardi Construction Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (Cal. 1992) (liberal construction of prevailing wage statutes to advance workers’ interests)
- State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan, 162 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. App. 2008) (principles re: prevailing wage law and enforcement context)
- People v. Wooten, 168 Cal.App.3d 168 (Cal. App. 1985) (place of business concept; non-vehicle locations)
- Creditors v. Consumer’s Lumber Co., 98 Cal. 318 (Cal. 1893) (place of business concept applied to determine proper venue)