Lee v. Justin Auto Repair, Inc. CA4/3

Filed 2/18/21 Lee v. Justin Auto Repair, Inc. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

KINGSTON LEE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058589

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-01023971)

JUSTIN AUTO REPAIR, INC., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed. Kingston Lee, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Park Law and Daniel M. Park for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Kingston Lee, who is representing himself, labors under the twin disabilities of an imperfect command of English, which is not his first language, and unfamiliarity with the law. While we admire his determination to soldier on regardless, the law requires us to make no distinction between self-represented parties and those represented by attorneys. The rules must be the same for all, so a party who represents himself must abide by the same rules that apply to lawyers. In this case, the rules restrict us to reviewing the same issues that the trial court considered and to reviewing only those documents included in the written record on appeal. Lee cannot introduce new issues in an appeal, and we cannot review anything that is not part of the written record. The trial court entered judgment against Lee after granting without leave to amend the second of two motions for judgment on the pleadings brought by respondent Justin Auto Repair, Inc. Lee complained that he had been subjected to harassment by fellow employees and that Justin Auto Repair, his employer, wrongfully terminated him. The court ruled that Lee had not alleged harassment based on one of the protected categories of Government Code section 12940 and had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm the judgment. Lee’s second amended complaint alleges two altercations with coemployees, neither of which constituted harassment as defined by the Government Code. In addition, Lee appears to have been an at-will employee, who could be fired at any time, so long as the reason was not a prohibited one. This was the basis of the trial court’s ruling, and it was correct. We cannot consider the other issues raised in Lee’s opening brief.