DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT v. DAVIS MORENO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Filed 3/16/11
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVIS MORENO CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. | F059454 (Super. Ct. No. VCU231688) OPINION |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Paul Anthony Vortmann, Judge.
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, Todd W. Baxter, Scott M. Reddie; Law Offices of William C. Hahesy, William C. Hahesy for Defendant and Appellant Davis Moreno Construction, Inc.
Dowling, Aaron & Keeler, Daniel K. Klingenberger, Stephanie Hamilton Borchers, and Micah K. Nilsson for Defendant and Appellant Ayodeji A. Ogundare.
Ramon Yuen-Garcia for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellants Ayodeji A. Ogundare, individually and doing business as Pacific Engineering Company (Pacific) and Davis Moreno Construction, Inc. (Davis) each moved to vacate a judgment entered against them pursuant to Labor Code section 1742.[1] Pacific contended that the judgment against it was not authorized by section 1742, subdivision (d) because it was filed in the wrong county and was therefore void. Davis raised the same contention, and further argued that the judgment against it had been obtained by means of extrinsic fraud. The superior court, relying on Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831 (Pressler) and Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th 364 (Maynard), concluded it did not have jurisdiction to grant relief, and denied both motions. Appellants now renew these same contentions on their appeals to this court. As we shall explain, we disagree with Pacific's contentions, but agree with Davis that the superior court had jurisdiction to entertain Davis' motion on its merits. We reverse the order of the trial court denying Davis' motion, but affirm as to Pacific.
Section 1742 describes a procedure under which the state can obtain a judgment against a contractor or subcontractor for violations of the state's prevailing wage law. In part â€
| Description | Appellants Ayodeji A. Ogundare, individually and doing business as Pacific Engineering Company (Pacific) and Davis Moreno Construction, Inc. (Davis) each moved to vacate a judgment entered against them pursuant to Labor Code section 1742.[1] Pacific contended that the judgment against it was not authorized by section 1742, subdivision (d) because it was filed in the wrong county and was therefore void. Davis raised the same contention, and further argued that the judgment against it had been obtained by means of extrinsic fraud. The superior court, relying on Pressler v. Donald L. Bren Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 831 (Pressler) and Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th 364 (Maynard), concluded it did not have jurisdiction to grant relief, and denied both motions. Appellants now renew these same contentions on their appeals to this court. As we shall explain, we disagree with Pacific's contentions, but agree with Davis that the superior court had jurisdiction to entertain Davis' motion on its merits. We reverse the order of the trial court denying Davis' motion, but affirm as to Pacific. |
| Rating |
