Ross v. Goldberger CA1/3

Opinion

Filed 9/28/26 Ross v. Goldberger CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

RICKY ROSS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A174791 v. SAMUEL M. GOLDBERGER et al., (Mendocino County Defendants and Respondents. Super. Ct. No. 25CV02638)

MEMORANDUM OPINION In September 2025, Ricky Ross filed a notice of appeal in the superior court, seeking to appeal a letter from the Labor Commissioner.1 Ross had submitted a complaint, and the letter informed her “the Labor Commissioner exercises [its] discretion to decline jurisdiction over this case.” It stated “[a]n examination of the case issues reveals that they include legal issues that are not within the jurisdiction of The Office of The Labor Commissioner. Therefore, this case is not suited to the adjudication of disputes of this type.” It also informed her she remained “free to pursue resolution of [her] dispute 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, including only necessary facts. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) Ross’s requests for judicial notice, filed July 15 and August 18, 2026, and her request to augment the record, filed August 18, 2026, are denied as irrelevant to the narrow issue on appeal here. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a).) 1 in a court of law or otherwise appropriate forum that may be available to [her].” After she filed her notice of appeal in the superior court, the case was assigned to Judge Moorman, but Ross filed a peremptory challenge against Judge Moorman on October 7. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6.) On October 13, the superior court reassigned the case to Judge Pekin. On October 14, Judge Pekin dismissed the appeal as nonactionable, explaining the Labor Commissioner “did not make a decision to be appealed.” Ross raises various claims on appeal. None merit reversal. She contends the trial court erred by dismissing her wage claim appeal without conducting a trial de novo. Not so. An employee may file a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner. (Corrales v. Bradstreet (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 33, 48.) But the “Commissioner is under no duty to accept an employee’s claim in the first instance,” and a decision not to accept the claim is not subject to de novo review in the superior court. (Id. at p. 50.) Because the commissioner declined to accept her claim without conducting a hearing, the superior court correctly concluded it was without jurisdiction to consider her appeal. (Ibid.) And contrary to her assertions, Judge Pekin dismissed Ross’s case after it was assigned to him due to her successful challenge to Judge Moorman. Thus, the order was not invalidated by her peremptory challenge of a different judge. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Because respondents did not file a brief, we shall award no costs on appeal.

2 _________________________ RODRÍGUEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ TUCHER, P. J.

_________________________ PETROU, J.

A174791; Ross v. Goldberger