Petrosyan v. Prince Corp.
Decision Date | 29 January 2014 |
Docket Number | B244274 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | ATOM PETROSYAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PRINCE CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent. |
(Los Angeles County
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frank J. Johnson, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Steptoe & Johnson and Rebecca Edelson for Appellant.
No appearance by Respondent.
Atom Petrosyan appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted a second mistrial and dismissed without prejudice his appeal of a Labor Commission unpaid wages award. We reverse because the second mistrial should not have been granted and remand for further proceedings.
The Labor Commissioner awarded Atom Petrosyan almost $12,700 for unpaid regular and overtime wages from his former employer, Prince Corporation, dba Sherman Car Wash. Petrosyan believed he was owed a total of more than $54,000 and appealed by way of a trial de novo in the superior court. (Lab. Code, § 98.2.)
Petrosyan represented himself at trial through an Armenian language interpreter. In advance of the first trial, Petrosyan told Prince's lawyer that he intended to introduce evidence that Prince had settled with nine other car wash employees who had sued for unpaid wages. Defense counsel said the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and asked the trial court to exclude it. The trial court asked Petrosyan if he intended to admit evidence of "that prior lawsuit?" Petrosyan said Prince had paid $225,000 to settle the dispute. The trial court asked again whether Petrosyan would try to "tell the jury about that lawsuit . . . ?"
When Petrosyan answered yes, the court asked why that evidence was relevant. Petrosyan answered, The trial court told Petrosyan that his action was for unpaid wages only, not for breach of an agreement to obtain the car wash. It granted the defense motion in limine, stating:
Petrosyan began his opening statement by talking about the harsh conditions under which he supposedly worked. Defense counsel objected when he said As defense counselcontinued to object and the translator asked to be allowed to translate, Petrosyan went on to say,
Defense counsel objected that the statement was prejudicial. After having the jury leave the courtroom, the trial court had Petrosyan confirm that he had been directed not to mention that lawsuit. The following colloquy occurred:
After Petrosyan apologized, the court turned to defense counsel and said, "I think you have grounds for mistrial." Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial, which the trial court granted, warning Petrosyan that "[i]f this happens again, I'm going to dismiss your case."
A second trial began in front of a new jury on August 21, 2012. Before jury selection began, defense counsel asked to renew his motion in limine "to preclude Mr. Petrosyan from introducing any evidence relating to any prior trials or settlements regarding my client . . . ." The trial court granted that motion, instructing Petrosyan Petrosyan said he understood what he had just been told.
Petrosyan gave a brief opening statement which, after some quick reminders to stay on point, consisted of his statement that he often worked without breaks or full compensation. Defense counsel gave his opening statement, claiming that Petrosyan had been properly compensated for his work, but was fired because he opened up a competing auto detailing business and took items from Prince to use in his own business.
Petrosyan then began to testify in narrative form. Petrosyan said he was ordered to break open car door locks, prompting defense counsel to object that the statements lacked foundation and relevance. The trial court cautioned Petrosyan that those statements had nothing to do with his wage claim. Petrosyan testified about not being paid for overtime or given required lunch breaks, but then said he was fired "because in 2008 he made me to go somewhere and give false statements and sign false papers."
This drew another defense objection for misconduct and a request by defense counsel to approach the bench. Instead of ruling, the trial court told Petrosyan once more that he was introducing evidence that had no bearing on his wage and hours claims.
Petrosyan testified that he was fired without cause, and that his employer made false statements to the Employment Development Department after Petrosyan filed for unemployment benefits. This prompted another reminder from the trial court that certain evidence had no bearing on the case, Petrosyan replied that he "applied to the Labor Board." The trial court said that the only relevant issue was the amount he claimed he was owed, stating, "You need to tell the jury how much and why you are owed that much." Petrosyan answered, "Labor Board paid me $12,000."
Defense counsel objected that the statement was irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, amounted to misconduct, and asked to approach the bench. The trial court excused the jurors before allowing defense counsel to resume. Defense counsel said,
The court said, The trial court then scolded Petrosyan for once more violating its instructions.
Petrosyan said he
The trial court told Petrosyan that because he had no legal training,
Petrosyan replied: The trial court asked defense counsel for his specific request. Defense counsel asked for a mistrial, not just based on mentioning the Labor Board award but for the personal attacks on his clients honesty and integrity, which counsel said had no basis, at least from looking at Petrosyan's proposed trial exhibits.
The trial court said:
Petrosyan said he did not know that he "can't talk...
To continue reading
Request your trial