Vidal v. Jang CA2/2

Filed 11/18/22 Vidal v. Jang CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JACQUELINE VIDAL, B316210

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TC029153) v.

ADRIAN JANG,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas D. Long, Judge. Affirmed.

Jacqueline Vidal, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

1

******

A former employee sued her former employer 11 years after the last evidence of her employ there. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that her claim was time- barred. This was correct, so we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 I. Facts In 2007, Jacqueline Vidal (plaintiff) started working as a secretary for Adrian Jang (Jang)2 and Michael H. Lee (Lee), who jointly owned a company called People’s Financial, Inc. Plaintiff provided ledger sheets showing her employment between May 14, 2007, and September 14, 2007. II. Procedural Background On May 15, 2018, plaintiff sued Jang, Lee and People’s Financial, Inc. (collectively, defendants) for the intentional tort of “refus[ing] to pay” her wages. She sought $96,000. On June 3, 2021, Jang filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s lawsuit was time-barred because it was filed nearly 11 years after she left his employ. In opposing the motion, the sole evidence plaintiff tendered were declarations from herself and her husband, in which they both indicated that Jang would call “every three or six months” with