Hernandez v. Princess Windows CA2/2

Filed 6/1/21 Hernandez v. Princess Windows CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

ENCARNACION HERNANDEZ, B302750

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC674792) v.

PRINCESS WINDOWS, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elaine Lu, Judge. Affirmed.

Karlin & Karlin, Marc A. Karlin for Defendants and Appellants.

Employee Justice Legal Group, Kaveh S. Elihu and Samuel J. Moorhead for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Plaintiff and respondent Encarnacion Hernandez brought this wage and hour action against his employer, defendant and appellant Princess Windows, LLC, and its owners, defendants and appellants Rosalba Barragan (Barragan) and Romueldo Guerrero (Guerrero). After hearing the evidence at trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendants appeal, alleging that the trial court should not have (1) granted plaintiff’s claim for rest break penalties, (2) held Barragan and Guerrero individually liable under Labor Code section 558.1 (section 558.1), and (3) awarded plaintiff as much in attorney fees as it did. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff worked for defendants in exchange for a weekly salary of $550 between September 6, 2013, and September 6, 2016. During that time period, he worked six days per week, over 51 hours in total (not including breaks). Defendants kept no records of any kind relating to plaintiff’s employment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 6, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant action against defendants, alleging nine causes of action all arising out of defendants’ failure to pay minimum wages and overtime and to provide rest breaks and itemized wage statements. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on April 29, 2019. As is relevant to the issues raised in this appeal, the only disputed issue was the number and length of breaks that defendants