Hawthorne v. Italian Fashion by Suzie CA2/8

Filed 6/29/15 Hawthorne v. Italian Fashion by Suzie CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

VERNON HAWTHORNE, B254211

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS135120) v.

ITALIAN FASHION BY SUZIE, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

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

Eric Sapir for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Lee & Park and Sang I. Lee for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________________

Plaintiff Vernon Hawthorne appeals from a trial court judgment rejecting his Labor Code claims against defendant Italian Fashion by Suzie, Inc. (Italian Fashion). On appeal, Hawthorne argues the trial court erred in concluding a release of claims he signed was enforceable. Hawthorne also contends substantial evidence did not support the trial court finding rejecting his claim that Soror Sinay, Italian Fashion’s principal, is the alter ego of Italian Fashion. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Italian Fashion employed Hawthorne. In April 2010, Hawthorne executed a document indicating he released Italian Fashion and other related parties from claims relating to overtime, including claims for wages associated with lunch or breaks. The document identified a $20,000 payment as consideration for the release. In March 2011, Hawthorne filed a claim with the California Labor Commissioner. Hawthorne alleged that from March 2008 to June 2010, defendants employed him but failed to pay him overtime wages or meal and rest break premiums. Hawthorne contended defendants owed him over $80,000 in unpaid wages, penalties, and interest. Following an evidentiary hearing, the hearing officer found the parties had previously reached a settlement of Hawthorne’s wage claims. The hearing officer found the release covered the matters raised in the complaint, and rejected as not credible Hawthorne’s contention that he never received the settlement amount of $20,000. The hearing officer concluded the Labor Commissioner’s office lacked jurisdiction to proceed because the parties’ settlement fully resolved all contested issues. Hawthorne sought a trial de novo in the superior court. In December 2013, the court held a bench trial on Hawthorne’s claims. No reporter’s transcript of the proceedings is included in the record on appeal.1 Trial was bifurcated; the first phase concerned only the validity of the April 2010 settlement agreement, titled “Accord and Satisfaction.” In a statement of decision, the trial court found that, pursuant to the written