Salim v. Shahinian
Filed 6/27/06 Salim v. Shahinian CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| IBRAHIM SALIM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VAHE GEORGE SHAHINIAN, Defendant and Respondent. | G035838 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC09221) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jane D. Myers, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Law Offices of George A. Saba and George A. Saba for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Office of Robert D. Coviello and Robert D. Coviello for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
In this case, the appellant, a gas station attendant, suffers the consequences of a tactical decision made in the trial court. The appellant filed a lawsuit to recover unpaid wages over a nine and one-half year period. The respondent, the gas station owner, filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of unpaid wages for more than a three-year period of time, based on the statute of limitations for causes of action based on statute, i.e., labor laws. The appellant opposed the motion on the ground that he was not suing for labor law violations, but rather was suing for breach of contract, fraud and other causes of action. Based on the appellant's representation that he was not suing for labor law violations, the court denied the motion in limine, and later denied the appellant's request to instruct the jury on labor law issues.
The jury found against the appellant on breach of contract and fraud theories and judgment was entered accordingly. The appellant challenges the judgment, primarily on labor law grounds. While a trial on labor law violations would have seemed most appropriate, the appellant invited any error on the part of the trial court in excluding labor law issues from the jury's consideration. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to persuade us that any of his other contentions have merit. We affirm.
I
FACTS
Plaintiff and appellant Ibrahim Salim (Salim) worked for Vahe George Shahinian (Shahinian) as a gas station attendant, beginning in August 1993. Salim testified: â€
