Chin

Chin v. Namvar

Good Law
166 Cal. App. 4th 994·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1415·83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294·2 Cal. WCC 1047
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 11, 2008B198986California5,769 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Kyong T. Chin was injured in May 2005 when he fell off a ladder while performing painting services at an Ontario shopping center known as Hollywood 28 (the shopping center). Although Chin at one time had been a licensed painting contractor, his license had expired in 2000, and he was not licensed at the time of injury. In January 2006, Chin and his wife filed a complaint naming as respondents Hollywood 28, L.L.C. (the limited liability corporation that owned the shopping center); Parviz Nadjat-Haiem (a partner in a business entity that owned one-half of Hollywood 28, L.L.C.); Tony Namvar (a partner in a business entity that owned the other one-half of Hollywood 28, L.L.C., and owner of Pentaco Management, Inc., which managed the shopping center); and Pentaco Construction Services, Inc. (collectively respondents). The gist of the complaint was that Chin was respondents’ employee at the time he was injured, and was entitled to wages and other compensation owed him. Also, as an employee for whom his employer had no workers’ compensation coverage, he was entitled to recover for negligence. Finally he was wrongfully terminated. He claimed respondents’…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.