Kim v. Kim CA2/8

California Court of Appeal May 13, 2014 No. B245296Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment finding the appellant was an independent contractor rather than an employee, noting that the absence of a reporter's transcript precluded a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The court also held that a defaulting defendant is entitled to the benefit of a successful defense established by a codefendant at trial.

Issues

Did the trial court err in entering judgment for a defaulting defendant when a codefendant successfully contested the underlying claims?
Does the absence of a reporter's transcript preclude an appellant from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence regarding employment status?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule is definitely established that where there are two or more defendants and the liability of one is dependent upon that of the other the default of one of them does not preclude his having the benefit of his codefendants”

“In the absence of a reporter’s transcript or agreed or settled statement, it is conclusively presumed that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings.”

“The court concluded appellant was an independent contractor, and this finding was fatal to all of his claims.”

Filed 5/13/14 Kim v. Kim CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

HYUNG CHUL KIM, B245296

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC467489) v.

JAMES KIM et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Amy D. Hogue, Judge. Affirmed.

Peter Beck for Plaintiff and Appellant.

James Kim, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent James Kim.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent Sunset Cellular, Inc.

______________________________

Hyung Chul Kim (appellant) sued James Kim and Sunset Cellular, Inc. (Sunset Cellular), alleging causes of action under the Labor Code for failure to pay overtime compensation and other wages. Following a bench trial, the court found appellant was an independent contractor, rather than an employee, and he was not entitled to relief under the Labor Code. The court entered judgment in favor of James Kim and Sunset Cellular.1 We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record in this appeal consists of a clerk’s transcript, which contains the case summary, a minute order and proposed judgment, appellant’s posttrial brief, and the trial court’s statement of decision. There is no reporter’s transcript. There is also no complaint or answer. Our summary of facts is taken from the statement of decision. (Loshonkohl v. Kinder (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 510, 512.) We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and resolve all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the prevailing party. (Burch v. Premier Homes, LLC (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 730, 744.) Appellant and Kim had been friends since childhood. When appellant came to the United States in 2009, he asked Kim for a job. Kim owns Sunset Cellular. Kim agreed to pay appellant $1,500 or $2,000 per month to run errands or pick up merchandise for Sunset Cellular. Appellant used his own car to complete these tasks. He was paid in cash. Appellant “came and went as he pleased,” and took vacations or days off when he wished, without needing or seeking Kim’s permission.

Kim v. Kim CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

HYUNG CHUL KIM, B245296

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BIGELOW, P.J.

FLIER, J.

AI Brief