Zheng v. Wong CA2/8

Filed 12/4/14 Zheng v. Wong CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MING ZHENG, B250654

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC474107) v.

JEFF WONG,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mary H. Strobel, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Barry G. Florence, Barry G. Florence; Lee Law Offices, Thomas M. Lee; Law Offices of Choi & Associates and Edward W. Choi for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Prince & Heuer and Henry T. Heuer for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

Plaintiff Ming Zheng appeals from a judgment dismissing his wage and hour claims against Jeff Wong, the manager of the restaurant at which Zheng was formerly employed. On appeal, Zheng contends the trial court erred in concluding Wong could not be held personally liable as Zheng’s employer under the Labor Code. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND From 2007 to 2011, Zheng worked as a delivery person at the Joy Feast restaurant. Jeff Wong was the restaurant manager and Zheng’s boss. Wong set Zheng’s work hours, told him how to do his job, and gave Zheng his pay in the form of a check and cash wages. The Joy Feast restaurant was owned by Chyn King, Inc., a corporate entity. Wong was instrumental in forming Chyn King and, at the time of trial, he was a stockholder in the corporation. Chyn King employed Wong as the manager of Joy Feast. In November 2011, Zheng filed a complaint against Wong and Chyn King asserting claims for failure to pay overtime compensation and minimum wages, for violation of the unfair competition law, and seeking Labor Code penalties. The complaint alleged the defendants were agents of one another, and that there was a “unity of interest” between Wong and Chyn King, such that it would be fair and equitable to pierce the corporate veil and hold Wong personally liable for Zheng’s claims. In December 2012, Zheng filed a notice of bankruptcy stay as to Chyn King, which had filed a bankruptcy petition. In February 2013, Zheng voluntarily dismissed Chyn King from the action. Despite the allegations in the complaint, Zheng did not pursue an alter ego theory. Trial was bifurcated. The first phase concerned only whether Wong was Zheng’s employer within the meaning of the Labor Code. Following the bench trial, the court ruled Wong was not Zheng’s employer and entered judgment in favor of Wong. Zheng timely filed this appeal.