Appellant employer challenged a decision of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County (California), which ruled in favor of respondent union in its action seeking to recover the statutory rights of four workers to prevailing wages and waiting time penalty wages pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1774, 203.

The plaintiff’s business attorney filed the claim for the client. The employer used the wrong classification to pay its workers. The union, as assignee of the workers' statutory rights, filed an action against the employer to recover underpaid wages and waiting time penalty wages. After an award was issued in the union's favor, the employer appealed. The court affirmed. The court found that, while the obligation to pay prevailing wages arose from an employment relationship that gave rise to contractual obligations and claims, the duty to pay the prevailing wage was statutory. Because the prevailing wage law was a minimum wage law mandated by statute, Cal. Lab. Code § 1194 provided an employee with a private statutory right to recover unpaid prevailing wages from an employer who failed to pay that minimum wage. The court held that workers on public works projects had a private statutory right to sue their employer for failure to pay the prevailing wage pursuant to Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1171, 1174, and for waiting time wages under Cal. Lab. Code § 203. Thus, the assignment of the workers' statutory rights gave the union standing to sue the employer for recovery of these amounts, which were properly awarded.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Appellant insurer challenged a summary judgment entered by the Superior Court of San Francisco County, California, in favor of respondents, an adjacent apartment building's owner and trustee, property managers, and refuse company, in the insurer's subrogation action in which it sought to recover sums that it paid to its insureds, a condominium association and one of the condominium owners, following a fire loss.

The fire started in the adjacent apartment building, after an ignition source was placed in a trash can, and the resultant fire spread to the insureds' condominium complex. The insurer argued that respondents' negligent failure to provide for the safe disposal of fireplace ashes caused the fire. The trial court found that the insurer's claims were barred by the doctrine of superior equities. The court held that the doctrine of superior equities applied in all cases of subrogation. The trial court did not err in requiring the insurer, as the subrogating insurer, to establish its superior equity in seeking recovery against respondents. However, the trial court improperly interpreted and applied the doctrine of superior equities. The mere fact that respondents did not start the fire did not automatically mean that they had a superior equitable position over the insurer. The contest was between an innocent insurer (which admittedly received premiums for the very loss that occurred) and alleged tortfeasors (who did not physically start the fire, but whose negligence allegedly permitted the fire to be started and to spread, by failing to provide for the safe disposal of fireplace ashes).

The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.