Zheng

DISCUSSION

Zheng contends the trial court erred in concluding Wong was not his employer within the meaning of the Labor Code. We disagree. We review the trial court’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. However, we independently review purely legal questions and issues concerning the application of law to undisputed facts. (Le v. Pham (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1201, 1205-1206; Steinman v. Malamed (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1556.)

I. The Trial Court Properly Concluded There Was No Legal Basis to Hold

Wong Personally Liable for Alleged Labor Code Violations As Zheng acknowledges, the California Supreme Court has considered the question of whether an individual who is a corporate agent may be held personally liable for failing to pay overtime or other wages under the Labor Code. In Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075 (Reynolds), the court considered whether the plaintiff could state a cause of action for recovery of unpaid overtime compensation against individuals who were officers or directors and shareholders of the corporate entities that owned the business for which the plaintiff worked. (Id. at p. 1081.) The court concluded the relevant Industrial Welfare…