Napitupulu v. Mad Science Laboratories CA2/1

Filed 5/23/23 Napitupulu v. Mad Science Laboratories CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

JONATHAN NAPITUPULU, B317570

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC129321) v.

MAD SCIENCE LABORATORIES, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Jay Ford, III, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Gene H. Shioda, Gene H. Shioda and James A. Kim for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kingfisher Law, Nithin Kumar; Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, Ekwan E. Rhow and Thomas R. Freeman for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________________

This appeal involves a wage claim by appellant Jonathan Napitupulu (Napitupulu), a laboratory scientist, against respondent Mad Science Laboratories, LLC, doing business as “Rehab Lab” (Mad Science). For the reasons more fully set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mad Science on the ground that he had no wages due. In 2016, Mad Science hired Napitupulu to serve as its technical supervisor. Mad Science agreed to pay Napitupulu an annual salary of $170,000 for his work in that role. Mad Science also transferred a five percent ownership interest in its business to Napitupulu, which entitled him to additional compensation in the form of profit-sharing payments. Napitupulu’s 2016 profit- sharing compensation totaled approximately $115,490. The parties agree that Mad Science employed Napitupulu on an “at will” basis, and on August 9, 2016, Napitupulu signed an “employee statement” containing an acknowledgement to that effect. (Capitalization omitted.) In January 2017, Mad Science informed Napitupulu that it could no longer afford to pay him a fixed annual salary, but that it would continue to make monthly profit-sharing payments. Notwithstanding the reduction in his compensation, Napitupulu continued working as Mad Science’s technical supervisor through mid-October 2017. Between January and October 2017, he received 10 profit-sharing payments from Mad Science totaling at least $103,500. On October 17, 2017, however, Napitupulu sent an email to Mad Science in which he resigned and stated his “inten[tion] to file a wage claim with the Labor Department for the wages [Mad Science had] failed to pay [him] since January 2017.” (Capitalization added.) On May 24, 2018, Napitupulu filed a complaint against Mad Science in the Los Angeles County Superior Court asserting