Loo v. Klingbeil Management
Plaintiff Nancy Loo was employed by defendant Klingbeil Capital Management, Ltd. (Klingbeil), as the property manager of an apartment complex that was managed by Klingbeil and owned by KMF Merrimac Woods, LLC (KMF). After Loo’s employment with Klingbeil was terminated, Loo filed a complaint with the California Labor Commissioner, alleging various wage and hour claims against Klingbeil. In September 2009, KMF filed an unlawful detainer action against Loo for failure to pay rent. (KMF Merrimac Woods, LLC v. Loo (Super. Ct. Orange County, No. 30‑2009‑00299377 (the KMF action).) Loo filed a cross‑complaint in the KMF action, asserting claims against Klingbeil and KMF for wrongful employment termination and wrongful eviction.
After the Labor Commissioner issued an order, decision, or award, denying Loo any recovery (the Labor Commissioner’s decision), Loo sought to appeal that decision by filing a motion for leave to amend her cross‑complaint in the KMF action, to add a claim appealing the Labor Commissioner’s decision and requesting a trial de novo; the trial court denied her motion to amend.
Loo thereafter filed a State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement form 537 notice of appeal (DLSE form 537) in the superior court, and thus commenced the instant action. The trial court dismissed the instant action on the ground Loo’s appeal from the Labor Commissioner’s decision was untimely under Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (a) (section 98.2(a)), and awarded Klingbeil prevailing party attorney fees and costs. (All further statutory references are to the Labor Code unless otherwise specified.)
We reverse. The sole issue before us is whether the trial court erred by dismissing the instant action as untimely under section 98.2(a). We conclude Loo’s appeal was timely because, two months before filing that appeal, she had sufficiently requested appellate review of the Labor Commissioner’s decision and requested a trial de novo in a pending case within the timeframe required under section 98.2(a).
Comments on Loo v. Klingbeil Management