Inobe v. Hino CA2/8

Filed 5/25/23 Inobe v. Hino CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

SETSUKO INOBE, B306188

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19LBCP00132) v.

NORIKO HINO,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael P. Vicencia, Judge. Affirmed.

Setsuko Inobe, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Noriko Hino, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiff and appellant Setsuko Inobe appeals from the judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Noriko Hino following a bench trial. Plaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit her documentary evidence and in admitting evidence from defendant that had been excluded as a discovery sanction. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff worked for defendant as a babysitter for almost one year. After she was terminated in early 2015, plaintiff filed a claim with the Labor Commissioner’s Office seeking unpaid wages and various penalties. A hearing was held in November 2018. The hearing officer issued a written decision finding in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the superior court pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2. The superior court does not review the hearing officer’s decision but considers the wage dispute anew in a trial de novo. (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1116.) The bench trial took place on February 10, 2020, and lasted less than one day. The trial was not reported. Plaintiff was represented by counsel and testified with the assistance of a certified Japanese interpreter. Defendant, representing herself, also testified. Neither party called witnesses and no exhibits were admitted into evidence. After taking the matter under submission, the court issued a minute order finding in favor of defendant and awarding her costs. After trial, plaintiff substituted in as her own counsel. She requested a settled statement from the trial court in accordance with rule 8.137 of the California Rules of Court. The court noted