Court Opinion

ID: 9889574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-10 18:08:47.319292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:17.713895
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/10/23 Skilled Nursing Pharmacy v. Cal. Dept. of Industrial Relations CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                     DIVISION SEVEN

 SKILLED NURSING PHARMACY,                                             B310719
 INC.,
                                                                       (Los Angeles County
           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                    Super. Ct. No. 20STCP01444)
           v.
 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al.,
            Defendants and Respondents.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.
      Daugherty Lordan, Brendan T. Sapien; Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith, Steven G. Gately and Jana Lubert for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
      Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement and Patricia Salazar for Defendants and
Respondents.
                                ________________________
                       INTRODUCTION

       Skilled Nursing Pharmacy, Inc. (SNP) appeals from the
dismissal of its petition for a writ of administrative mandate
challenging a wage order imposed by the California Department
of Industrial Relations (Department) for various Labor Code and
wage order violations. The trial court dismissed the petition after
SNP failed to post a bond required by Labor Code section 1197.1
as a condition for filing the petition. On appeal, SNP argues this
was error because it was entitled to a waiver of the bond
requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 995.240,1
which authorizes the trial court to waive a bond requirement
upon a showing of indigency and inability to obtain a surety.
SNP asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
its application for a bond waiver because it presented sufficient
evidence it was indigent and the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic diminished the value of its assets, making it impossible
to obtain a bond. We conclude SNP failed to demonstrate the
trial court abused its discretion and affirm.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.   The Labor Commissioner Determined SNP Engaged in
     Labor Code and Wage Order Violations
     SNP is an “institutional pharmacy” for medical facilities.
In March 2016 the Department’s inspectors investigated alleged
Labor Code and wage and hour order violations at SNP’s facilities

1     Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure
unless otherwise provided.

                                2
in the City of Industry. As a result of the investigation, in
August 2017, the California Labor Commissioner issued a wage
citation to SNP for a claim period of August 2014 to April 2016
covering between 74 to 78 employees for, among other violations,
unpaid minimum wages and overtime and double-time wages,
and liquidated damages. The wage citation for the violations
totaled $1,746,577.91.
        SNP appealed the wage citation to the Labor
Commissioner. After an administrative hearing in November
2018 the Labor Commissioner affirmed the wage order on
March 6, 2020. On the same day, the Department served SNP
with the decision: the “Notice of Findings, Findings, and Order
on Wage Citation” (NOF).
        The NOF informed SNP of its right to file a petition for a
writ of mandate in the superior court: “The writ must be taken
within forty-five (45) days of the mailing of this Notice. If you do
not seek review of these findings, it may be filed and enforced as
a judgment in an appropriate court of law.” The Department also
provided SNP with notice of the bond filing requirements in
Labor Code section 1197.1, subdivision (c): “PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE: As of January 1, 2017, Labor Code § 1197.1 requires
the posting of a bond with the Labor Commissioner as a condition
to filing a writ of mandate in superior court. The bond shall be in
the amount equal to the total amount of any minimum wages,
liquidated damages, and overtime compensation that are due and
owing, but shall not include amounts for penalties.”2

2      SNP was required to post a bond in the amount of
$1,036,373.00, representing $388,135.72 for minimum wage
violations, $456,371.43 for liquidated damages under Labor Code

                                 3
B.    SNP’s Writ Petition and Application To Waive the Bond
      Requirement
      On April 20, 2020 SNP filed its Verified Petition for Writ of
Administrative Mandate, Prohibition, or Other Appropriate
Relief (Petition). Ten days later SNP filed its Application for
Waiver of Labor Code Section 1197.1 Bond (Application). In the
Application, SNP claimed that, although it had tried to do so,
obtaining a bond in excess of a million dollars was impossible
because of the pandemic.
      The only factual support for the Application was a one-page
declaration from Ben Mandelbaum, identified as “an owner” of
SNP, asserting SNP could not obtain a bond of $1,036,373
(Mandelbaum Declaration). Mandelbaum attested that upon
learning of the wage citation, SNP attempted to obtain the writ
bond required by Labor Code section 1197.1. He stated SNP
contacted “multiple surety bond and underwriting companies,”
but was “expressly told” it would be “difficult” to obtain a bond
“with credit markets tightening because of COVID-19.” He
further declared that “compounding what became the clear
impossibility of obtaining a bond, the pandemic’s impact on the
economy began to diminish the value of any potential [SNP]
assets, which could otherwise be used as collateral.”
Mandelbaum stated that “it became clear that a cash bond would
be the only viable option to meet this Bond requirement,” but

section 1194.2, and $191,865.86 in overtime and double-time
wages. Although the Labor Commissioner affirmed the wage
citation in the amended amount of $1,745,914.39, the bond
amount at issue is $1,036,373.00, which is the amount equal to
unpaid minimum wages, overtime or double-time, and liquidated
damages under the statute.

                                 4
“[d]ue to the drastic and accelerated shutdown in the economy
due to the pandemic, posting a cash Bond in the required amount
of $1,036,373.00 was and is not possible. [SNP] does not have
any cash on hand or similar liquid assets anywhere near that
value.” Mandelbaum concluded that “[w]ere [SNP] to post a Bond
in the amount identified by the Order, [it] would have to shut
down operations during this most critical time in the global
pandemic.” SNP did not support the Application or
Mandelbaum’s declaration with any facts regarding SNP’s
financial condition or its unsuccessful efforts to obtain a bond.
Instead, SNP requested judicial notice of several articles from the
Los Angeles Times describing the effect of the pandemic on the
economy.3
      On July 30, 2020 the trial court held a trial setting
conference at which the Department made a special appearance
because SNP had not yet served the Petition or the Application.
The court directed the parties to stipulate to a briefing schedule,
continued the conference, and set the hearing on the Application
for October 13.

C.   The Department’s Opposition to the Application, SNP’s
     Reply, and SNP’s Ex Parte Application To Continue the
     Hearing
     On October 1, 2020 the Department made a general
appearance filing its opposition to the Application. The
Department argued SNP failed to establish its entitlement to a
waiver of the bond requirement. First, the Department argued

3    The trial court denied judicial notice of these articles, and,
on appeal, SNP does not challenge this ruling or renew its
request for judicial notice.

                                 5
that because SNP was a corporate entity and not a natural
person, it could not demonstrate it was “indigent” under
section 995.240. Second, it contended SNP did not prove
indigency because SNP provided no evidence supporting
Mandelbaum’s conclusory statements SNP could not obtain a
bond from a surety and had insufficient assets to post a cash
bond. The Department argued SNP had access to assets that
could be used to obtain a bond. It urged the court to consider
that granting the waiver would negatively impact the workers
whom the Labor Code violations had harmed.
      In support of its opposition, the Department presented
evidence of SNP’s corporate status, assets, and the assets of
SNP’s owners, Mandelbaum and his wife, Michelle Mandelbaum,
who was also an officer and director of SNP. The Department
also presented evidence that while the Application was pending,
in August 2020, SNP obtained a loan from VFI Corporate
Finance, which provides direct lending to businesses.4 In
addition, the Department showed Mandelbaum and his wife were
trustees of the “Mandelbaum Family 1998 Revocable Trust,”
which held title to a single-family residence in Los Angeles that,
at the time the opposition was filed, had an estimated value
between $4,250,575 and $4,677,743. The Department also

4     In November 2018, shortly after the Labor Commissioner’s
administrative hearing on the wage citation, SNP converted into
a limited liability company, SNP Pharmacy, LLC. Mandelbaum
was identified as the manager of the limited liability company,
which shares the same address as SNP, and Mandelbaum was
identified as chief executive officer and/or president. Substantial
evidence supports the trial court’s implied finding these are the
same entities. On appeal, the parties do not contend this change
in SNP’s corporate form affects our analysis.

                                 6
presented evidence SNP conducted operations in Glendale at a
property owned by “900 Western Ave LLC,” itself owned and
operated by Mandelbaum. The Department presented evidence
that smaller properties in the same area as the Glendale property
were listed for sale between $2,999,999 and $3,500,000 in
October 2020.
       On October 8, 2020 SNP filed an ex parte request to
continue the hearing on the Application to effectuate service on
the Department and to respond to the opposition. In opposing
this request the Department argued, for the first time, the
Application was untimely because SNP failed to file it before the
Petition. The trial court continued the hearing to October 22 and
gave SNP until October 13 to file a reply.
       SNP’s reply argued the Department ignored the effects of
the pandemic and, without citing any authority, that the assets
the Department raised in its opposition could not be considered
because they were not accessible to SNP or under its control. In
the event its Application was denied, SNP asked the trial court
for 30 days from the date of the hearing “to attempt to post the
bond in order to proceed with the Writ at issue.”

D.     The Trial Court Denied the Application, Ultimately Gave
       SNP 40 Days To Post the Bond, and Dismissed the Petition
       When SNP Failed To Post Bond
       On October 22, 2020 after hearing argument from the
parties, the trial court denied the Application. The trial court
first acknowledged its discretion under section 995.240 to waive
the bond required under Labor Code section 1197.1,
subdivision (c). Relying on Williams v. FreedomCard, Inc. (2004)
123 Cal.App.4th 609 (Williams), a published Second District,

                               7
Division Two opinion, the court determined SNP had not
demonstrated it was entitled to relief from the bond requirement
because indigence is a human condition that does not apply to a
corporate entity like SNP.
       The trial court found that, even if corporate entities could
be indigent for purposes of relief from the bond requirement, SNP
failed to establish it met the requirements for a waiver under
section 995.240. The court determined the sole basis to support
the claim of indigence, the Mandelbaum Declaration, “only
provides conclusory and unsupported statements and offers no
documentary evidence in support of its claim of indigency and
inability to post a cash bond.” The court found SNP had not
shown it lacked access to assets to secure a bond, noting
Mandelbaum, an owner of SNP, had substantial assets. The
court ruled SNP failed to show Mandelbaum’s assets should not
and could not be used to post a bond for his company.
       The court also found Mandelbaum’s assertions SNP could
not obtain a bond and the claimed impact of the pandemic on the
company were undermined by evidence SNP obtained a loan from
VFI Corporate Finance during the pandemic. The court further
addressed SNP’s argument about the pandemic at the hearing:
“If I were to accept the bond waiver argument based on the
COVID-19 pandemic, then that would mean there would be no
bonds posted at all. Not just on waiver cases but on preliminary
injunctions and anything else. That’s just not acceptable. Yes,
the pandemic has adversely affected businesses, some businesses
much more than others. Although I’m not sure that a business
that supplies medication is going to be all that adversely
affected.”

                                8
        Finally, the court examined section 995.240’s requirement
that it consider the nature of the beneficiaries and the potential
harm to them if the bond is waived. The court observed the
beneficiaries included the 74 to 78 workers who had not received
their minimum wages, liquidated damages, and overtime and
double-time wages, as well as the Labor Commissioner who
enforces minimum labor standards by investigating and issuing
citations to employers.
        The court then considered how much time SNP would have
to post the bond. The Department opposed giving SNP any
additional time, arguing SNP was required to post the bond or
seek a waiver as a pre-condition to filing the Petition. The
Department asserted SNP did not file its Application until after
it filed the Petition and the failure to seek the waiver or post the
bond before filing the Petition deprived the court of jurisdiction to
consider its merits. In response, SNP’s counsel argued the
Department had not raised that argument in its written
opposition to the Application or at any point until the ex parte
proceedings in mid-October 2022. SNP asserted it had not been
given an opportunity to address the jurisdictional argument.
SNP’s counsel represented SNP had attempted to file the
Application before the Petition. But, according to counsel, the
superior court clerk would not allow SNP to file the Application
until after it filed the Petition, instructing SNP to file the
Application after the Petition had a case number, and a judge
was assigned.
        The trial court agreed the jurisdiction issue was not
properly before it and refused to deny the Application or dismiss
the Petition on that basis. The court also observed it did not have
authority to dismiss the Petition automatically based on its

                                 9
denial of the Application for a bond waiver. Instead, the court
stated it would issue an order to show cause (OSC) as to why the
Petition should not be dismissed. The court further stated that if
SNP posted a bond before the OSC, then the Department could
seek to have the Petition dismissed on the ground SNP failed to
seek the waiver or post the bond on a timely basis.
      The trial court gave SNP until November 5, 2020 to post
the bond. On November 10 the trial court continued the OSC to
December 1, effectively giving SNP 40 days from the denial of its
Application to post the bond.
      On December 1, 2020 during the OSC Re: Dismissal
hearing, SNP informed the trial court it had not and would not
post the bond. As part of its oral motion to dismiss, the
Department reasserted its jurisdictional argument. The trial
court dismissed the Petition, ruling the dismissal order was
based only on SNP’s failure to post the bond as required by Labor
Code section 1197.1. The court expressly stated it was not
considering the Department’s jurisdictional argument.
      SNP subsequently appealed.

                             DISCUSSION

A.      Governing Law and Standard of Review
        Labor Code section 1197.1 authorizes employers, like SNP,
to seek judicial review of the Labor Commissioner’s wage orders
and findings that the employer violated the Labor Code. (Labor
Code, § 1197.1, subd. (c)(2) [“A writ of mandate may be taken
from this finding to the appropriate superior court.”].)
Subdivision (c)(3) of this statute further mandates, as a condition
to filing a petition for writ of mandate, that the employer “shall

                                10
first post a bond with the Labor Commissioner [issued in favor of
unpaid employees] equal to the total amount of any minimum
wages, contract wages, liquidated damages, and overtime
compensation that are due and owing.”
       A petitioner may ask the trial court to waive the statutory
bond requirement. (Conover v. Hall (1974) 11 Cal.3d 842, 850-
853; see also Code of Civ. Proc., § 995.240 [codifying common law
authority recognized in Conover].) Specifically, under
section 995.240, the court “may, in its discretion, waive a
provision for a bond . . . if the court determines that the principal
is unable to give the bond because the principal is indigent and is
unable to obtain sufficient sureties, whether personal or admitted
surety insurers. In exercising its discretion, the court shall take
into consideration all factors it deems relevant, including but not
limited to the character of the action or proceeding, the nature of
the beneficiary, whether public or private and the potential harm
to the beneficiary if the provision for the bond is waived.”
(§ 995.240; see Li v. Department of Industrial Relations (2020)
53 Cal.App.5th 877, 885-886 (Li).)
       The party seeking relief from the bond requirement has the
burden to show entitlement to such relief. (See Alshafie v.
Lallande (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 421, 432 (Alshafie) [describing
nature of showing for indigency claims]; accord, Baltayan v.
Estate of Getemyan (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1427, 1434 (Baltayan)
[“the plaintiff should make a prima facie showing that he has
unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the required undertaking or
that he is unable to furnish it”].)

                                 11
       We review the trial court’s denial of a waiver of the bond
requirement for abuse of discretion. (Alshafie, supra,
171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 431-434; see Sanchez v. Kern Emergency
Medical Transportation Corp. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 146, 154
[“‘When applying the deferential abuse of discretion standard,
“the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial
evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its
application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary
and capricious.”’ [Citation.] ‘It is the appellant’s burden on
appeal to show the trial court abused its discretion.’”].) A court’s
exercise of discretion in declining to waive a bond requirement
“will be disturbed on appeal only if the court exercised it in an
arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner resulting in a
manifest miscarriage of justice.” (Baltayan, supra,
90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1434.) A “weak and incomplete showing of
indigency” is sufficient to support a conclusion “the trial court did
not act arbitrarily, capriciously or absurdly in denying [a] motion
for relief from the undertaking.” (Id. at p. 1435.)

B.     Analysis
       SNP contends the trial court abused its discretion by
denying the Application for a waiver of the bond requirement
because the Mandelbaum Declaration—the only evidence it
submitted—adequately demonstrated SNP was indigent and that
it tried but was unsuccessful in obtaining a bond. SNP further
asserts the court failed to consider the effect of the pandemic on
its ability to obtain a bond, and that it should not have
considered the assets of its owners. We affirm.

                                 12
      1.     The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by
             Denying SNP’s Application To Waive the Bond
             Requirement
       The trial court’s conclusion that SNP did not demonstrate
indigency, as required by the first prong of section 995.240, was
no abuse of discretion.
       In Williams, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at pages 614 to 615,
Division Two of the Second District cast doubt on the notion that
a corporate entity can claim indigency under section 995.240. In
Williams, a natural person (Mr. Buford) and a corporation
(FreedomCard) sought a stay of enforcement and a waiver of a
bond under section 995.240. (Williams, at p. 612.) The appellate
court confirmed that to obtain a waiver, the movants must
demonstrate they were indigent and unable to obtain a bond or
other surety. (See id. at pp. 614-615; see also § 995.240.)
Regarding Mr. Buford, the court determined that, although he
could seek relief under section 995.240, he simply “did not claim”
indigency and was, therefore, not entitled to any relief.
(Williams, at p. 612.) Williams then made the following
observation: “[r]egarding FreedomCard, a corporate entity, it is
well settled that a corporation is not a ‘person’ for the purposes of
establishing indigency, at least in the analogous context of
obtaining in forma pauperis status to dispense with federal
requirements as to filing fees, costs and security.” (Id. at pp. 615,
citing Rowland v. California Men’s Colony (1993) 506 U.S. 194,
203-206 (Rowland) [only natural persons may proceed in forma
pauperis under federal statute].)

                                 13
       The trial court here applied Williams and ruled that
because indigence is a human condition, and SNP is a corporate
entity, SNP could not seek relief under section 995.240. On
appeal, SNP cited no contrary authority. SNP does not address
this point in Williams in its opening brief and, although the
Department argued the point in its respondents’ brief, SNP opted
not to file a reply. SNP effectively conceded this point by failing
to address it on appeal. (See Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad
Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 125 (Christoff) [“[A]n appellant’s
failure to discuss an issue in its opening brief forfeits the issue on
appeal.”].) We could affirm on that basis alone. (See Golden Door
Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th
467, 558 [appellant’s failure to address the trial court’s “ruling in
its opening brief compels the conclusion the trial court’s ruling on
that point must be affirmed”].)
       Whatever we may think of Williams, we need not reach the
issue, and assume a corporate entity can claim indigency under
section 995.240.5 In all events, substantial evidence supports the
trial court’s finding SNP was not indigent. SNP’s Application
and supporting declaration lack specific information regarding
SNP’s financial condition. The trial court correctly assessed that

5      We note the First District, in Cardinal Care Management,
LLC v. Afable (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1019-1021 (Cardinal
Care Management), considered whether two limited liability
companies and their sole member, Steve Chou, were eligible for
relief under section 995.240 from a bond requirement under
Labor Code section 98.2. Although it cited Williams, the
Cardinal Care Management court examined the moving parties’
claim of indigence on the merits without addressing whether the
corporate form of the two entities categorically precluded them
from obtaining relief.

                                 14
Mandelbaum’s declaration provided only “conclusory and
unsupported” statements and “offer[ed] no documentary evidence
in support of its claim of indigency.”
       The closest the Mandelbaum Declaration comes to offering
specific details about SNP’s financial condition is the following
statement: “Due to the drastic and accelerated shutdown in the
economy due to the pandemic, posting a cash Bond in the
required amount of $1,036,373.00 was and is not possible. [SNP]
does not have any cash on hand or similar liquid assets anywhere
near that value.” Mandelbaum further represented that: “Were
[SNP] to post a Bond in the amount identified by the Order,
[SNP] would have to shut down operations during this most
critical time in the global pandemic.” These statements fall well
short of the specificity courts require to waive a bond
requirement on the basis of indigency. (See Alshafie, supra,
171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 431-435; accord, Baltayan, supra,
90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1435.) SNP offered no facts or details to
support its claims of indigency in Mandelbaum’s declaration.
(See Ferguson v. Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649, 658; Alshafie, at
p. 432 [a sworn statement of hardship including financial
information may be sufficient].) At best, SNP’s assertions it
lacked assets to pay the bond and would have to shut down are
“weak and incomplete.” (Baltayan, at p. 1435.)
       Additionally, SNP did not support Mandelbaum’s
declaration with documentary evidence courts typically examine
to assess claims of indigency, such as balance sheets, tax returns,
descriptions of assets, and bank statements. (See, e.g., Li, supra,
53 Cal.App.5th at pp. 885-887 [holding the trial court did not err
in requiring petitioner to support his request for a bond waiver
with detailed information about his property, including transfers

                                15
of real property]; see also Cardinal Care Management, LLC v.
Afable (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1022 [trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying waiver of undertaking where appellant
supported claim of indigency with generalizations “he could not
provide collateral for the undertaking ‘without depriving myself
and my dependents of the [unspecified] necessaries of life’”];
Roberts v. Superior Court (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 235, 236-237
(Roberts) [appellant supported the waiver request with, among
other evidence, two affidavits from bonding company
representatives attesting appellant was indigent and could not,
therefore, obtain an undertaking].) Because Mandelbaum’s
declaration lacked any specific facts regarding SNP’s financial
condition—a deficiency that could have been cured with
documentary evidence—the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by rejecting SNP’s claims of indigence.
       The trial court’s conclusion was further supported by the
Department’s evidence SNP and its owners had access to
significant assets. The Department presented evidence that,
while the Application was pending, SNP obtained a loan from a
financial institution providing direct lending to businesses. The
Department presented evidence Mandelbaum and his wife, SNP’s
owners, themselves had significant assets, including real
property collectively worth several million dollars. As the trial
court observed, SNP did not “explain why an owner cannot be
expected to use his own assets to post a bond.” And on appeal,
SNP cites no authority prohibiting the trial court from
considering the assets of its owners. Regardless, several courts
have looked to the assets of the party’s household or close
associates in deciding whether a waiver is warranted under
section 995.240. (See Baltayan, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1434

                               16
[“Appellant likewise did not address whether he or his wife had a
friend or relative who would be willing to either post a cash bond
or pay the premium on a surety bond.”]; Fuller v. State of
California (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 664, 667 [“A plaintiff financially
unable to post a cash bond or to pay the premium on a surety
bond may, nevertheless, have friends or relatives willing and able
to qualify as sureties. Such persons might well believe in the
justice of a plaintiff’s claim, and be willing by their undertaking
to see that the claim is prosecuted.”]; cf. Alshafie, supra,
171 Cal.App.4th at p. 435, fn. 10 [“although information
concerning the unavailability of relatives or friends to provide the
resources for a bond may be of interest,” plaintiff need not show
“people outside his or her own household or nuclear family cannot
assist in paying court fees or costs”].)
       Substantial evidence also supports the trial court’s finding
SNP failed to satisfy the second prong of the statutory
requirement: that it could not obtain sufficient sureties. (See
§ 995.240.) Although Mandelbaum declared he contacted
“multiple surety bonds and underwriting companies” and was
told it would be “difficult” to obtain a bond because of the
pandemic, SNP offered no details or facts, let alone documentary
support for that statement. The declaration does not, for
example, identify any bond or underwriting companies SNP
contacted, the dates or nature of any contact, nor does it even
state SNP actually applied for a bond or undertaking and was
rejected. Without sufficient facts the trial court had no basis for
accepting Mandelbaum’s conclusory statements. (See Alshafie,
supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at pp. 431-434; accord, Roberts, supra,
264 Cal.App.2d at pp. 236-237 [movant submitted two affidavits
of bonding company representatives that the appellant was

                                17
indigent and could not, therefore, obtain an undertaking];
Baltayan, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1434 [“Nor did appellant or
his attorney show that they had made any unsuccessful effort to
obtain an undertaking. Counsel’s declaration merely stated that
he had ‘inquired of several bond companies as to the procedure
for obtaining’ the required undertaking, but did not show any
actual attempt to obtain it.”].) Absent a more particularized
showing of an unsuccessful effort to obtain a bond or surety, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding SNP failed to
meet its burden under the second prong of section 995.240.
       We also conclude the trial court did not err in its
assessment of other relevant factors, including the impact the
bond waiver would have on the workers who had been harmed by
the violations found by the Labor Commissioner. The statute
expressly allows the court to examine “all factors it deems
relevant, including but not limited to” the “potential harm to the
beneficiary if the provision for the bond is waived.” (§ 995.240.)
Moreover, contrary to SNP’s steadfast assertions, the trial court
expressly considered the effect of the pandemic, albeit at the
hearing on its Application. The court acknowledged the effect on
some business but rejected SNP’s claim the pandemic prevented
SNP from obtaining a bond. In light of SNP’s deficient showing,
the trial court’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.6

6      As noted above, section 995.240 codifies the common law
authority to waive bond requirements. To the extent SNP
contends the common law separately entitles it to relief, SNP
forfeited the argument by failing to provide substantive
argument in support. (See Christoff, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th at
p. 125.)

                                18
      2.     The Trial Court Did Not Err by Dismissing the
             Petition After SNP Failed To Post Bond
       Finally, because the trial court did not err in denying the
Application to waive the bond requirement, the court’s dismissal
of the Petition for failure to post the bond was also proper.
(Williams, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 615 [trial court did not
abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to post the
requisite bond]; cf. Progressive Concrete, Inc. v. Parker (2006)
136 Cal.App.4th 540, 552 [dismissal may be ordered if the trial
court orders the employer to post bond and the employer fails to
comply with the order].) Further, we note the trial court, over
the Department’s objections, gave SNP several additional weeks
after it denied the Application to post bond before it dismissed
the Petition. In total, SNP had almost nine months to post bond
from the time it filed its Petition until the court ultimately
dismissed it. SNP has failed to show any abuse of discretion or
miscarriage of justice.7

7     Because we affirm the judgment of dismissal on the merits,
we need not address the Department’s additional argument that
SNP’s delay in filing the Application deprived the trial court of
jurisdiction, which, as discussed, depends on a disputed factual
issue not resolved in the trial court.

                                 19
                           DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are to recover their
costs on appeal.

                                    MARTINEZ, J.
We concur:

     PERLUSS, P. J.

     FEUER, J.

                              20