28 Cal. App. 5th 709
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- On June 23, 2014 DOSH inspected an Oakland construction site and cited Raam Construction as a "controlling employer."
- Raam contested the citation before an ALJ; the ALJ upheld the citation and Raam timely petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Appeals Board) for reconsideration.
- On March 4, 2016, the Appeals Board denied Raam's petition for reconsideration, and the denial was filed and served that same day.
- Raam filed a petition for writ of mandate in Alameda County Superior Court 35 days later; DOSH demurred and the Appeals Board moved to dismiss as untimely.
- The court commissioner sustained the demurrer and granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend; judgment was entered for DOSH and the Appeals Board.
- Raam appealed, arguing (1) the writ was timely because the 30-day period should run from actual knowledge/service rather than filing, and (2) the commissioner lacked authority absent a stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Labor Code § 6627’s 30‑day filing period is triggered by filing of the Appeals Board denial or by the petitioner’s notice/knowledge | Raam: the 30‑day clock should run from when petitioner knew of the denial (service/notice), not merely the filing | DOSH/Appeals Board: § 6627’s plain text triggers the period at denial/filing; service rules like CCP § 1013 do not apply | Held: § 6627 is unambiguous; the 30‑day period runs from the denial/filing date; Raam’s petition was untimely |
| Whether the court’s decision is void because a commissioner (not a judge) decided the motion without a written stipulation | Raam: no record stipulation, so commissioner lacked authority | DOSH/Appeals Board: parties implicitly consented by fully participating before the commissioner | Held: Implied (tantamount) stipulation applies where counsel fully participated and did not object; judgment stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Camper v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 3 Cal.4th 679 (interpreting analogous statute; time period triggered by filing, not service)
- In re Horton, 54 Cal.3d 82 (tantamount‑stipulation doctrine; implied consent to commissioner authority)
- People v. Tijerina, 1 Cal.3d 41 (general rule that commissioners lack authority absent stipulation)
- People v. Manzo, 53 Cal.4th 880 (principle that clear statutory language controls interpretation)
- Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 52 Cal.4th 499 (statutory interpretation starts with plain meaning)