Park v. Dr. Midas Medical Group CA2/5

Filed 7/27/21 Park v. Dr. Midas Medical Group CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

GINGER PARK, B301873

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19STCV05213)

DR. MIDAS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Chad Biggins and Chad Biggins for Defendants and Appellants. Law Office of Jonathan Ricasa and Jonathan Ricasa; Briana Kim for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Plaintiff Ginger Park (plaintiff) filed a class action complaint alleging wage and hour claims against her former employer, Dr. Midas Medical Group, Inc. (Midas), Midas’s CEO Han Tae Choe (Choe), and Youngjoo Hahn (collectively, defendants). Defendants appeal from the trial court’s order denying their motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the purported agreement to arbitrate is unconscionable. We consider whether defendants have furnished an adequate record to permit review of the trial court’s order.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff worked for Midas as a “consultant/store manager” (plaintiff’s characterization) or “manager” (defendants’ characterization) between 2014 and 2018. In 2019, plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendants alleging meal period and rest break violations (Lab. Code, §§ 226.7, 512), minimum wage and overtime violations (Lab. Code, §§ 510, 1194, 1198), failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Lab. Code, §§ 226, 1174), failure to timely pay final wages (Lab. Code, §§ 201-204), and violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). About six months after plaintiff filed her complaint, defendants moved to compel arbitration. In a declaration accompanying the motion, CEO Choe explained defendants were initially “unable to locate [plaintiff’s] employment agreement