Burgueno v. Epic Imports CA2/5

Filed 5/9/14 Burgueno v. Epic Imports CA2/5 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LOUIS BURGUENO, B240733 (Consolidated w/B244936)

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC430391) v.

EPIC IMPORTS, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Reversed and remanded in part, and affirmed in part. Magnanimo & Dean, Lauren A. Dean and Frank A. Magnanimo for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

In these consolidated appeals, Louis Burgueno challenges the judgment entered after the jury returned a special verdict finding in favor of his former employer, Epic Imports, LLC (Epic) and its owners, Lori Pecarich and Jeffrey Mosich as to nine causes of action, and the trial court’s orders denying his motions for new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and attorney fees. Burgueno contends: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that Epic did not knowingly and intentionally fail to furnish him with accurate wage statements; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that Epic’s failure to pay him all wages upon termination was not willful and deliberate; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence; and (4) the trial court either lacked discretion or abused its discretion when it denied him attorney fees on the two causes of action under the Labor Code on which Burgueno prevailed. Burgueno forfeited the first three contentions on appeal by failing to fully and fairly discuss conflicting evidence, properly cite to the record, and produce an adequate record. We conclude, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees under Labor Code §§ 218.5 and 11941 for services rendered in connection with the recovery of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime compensation. We reverse the trial court’s order denying attorney fees and remand for the trial court to calculate reasonable attorney fees under section 1194. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment and orders are affirmed.