Abarca v. JK Residential Services CA2/1

Filed 6/26/15 Abarca v. JK Residential Services CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

FLOR ABARCA, B256488

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS144978) v.

JK RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard L. Fruin, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. ______ Law Offices of Robert Lee and Robert Lee for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Kevin Jones, Kevin B. Jones and Karen E. Nakon for Defendant and Respondent. ______

Flor Abarca appeals from the judgment entered after a bench trial in which the trial court found her an exempt employee and rejected her claim against her former employer, JK Residential Services, Inc., for wage and hour violations. Abarca contends that the court should have allowed her to conduct additional discovery and tried the matter to a jury. She also contends that substantial evidence does not support the exempt employee finding. We reject her contentions and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2011, JK Residential, a residential property management company, hired Abarca to supervise the operations of 11 to 13 apartment properties. JK Residential terminated her about nine months later in July 2012. Abarca filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner claiming wage and hour violations. The Labor Commissioner found in Abarca’s favor and awarded her approximately $50,000. JK Residential appealed to the trial court pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (a), which provides for de novo review of the Labor Commissioner’s award. After a bench trial, the court found Abarca was an exempt employee and thus not entitled to the compensation she sought for wage and hour violations. Abarca filed a notice of appeal. The court subsequently entered judgment for JK Residential.1 DISCUSSION 1. Abarca Did Not Preserve a Claim for Appeal Regarding Discovery In a proceeding under Labor Code section 98.2, subdivision (a), the trial court has discretion whether to allow discovery. (Sales Dimensions v. Superior Court (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 757, 763.) “[W]here the matter is analogous to a small claims case, i.e., the amount in controversy is not great and the issues involved are not complex, the court should give effect to the policy of the discovery statutes and of the Labor Code by