This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Compensations, Benefits
Wage and Hour

Vincent Lau v. Shining Furniture Manufacturing Group Corporation, GM Cabinet Corporation, GM Furniture, Li Feng aka Angela Feng

Published: Oct. 31, 2009 | Result Date: Feb. 2, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC382091 Bench Decision –  $339,963 (plus attorney fees, costs, and interest)

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert H. Rogers

Theodore S. Khachaturian


Defendant

David S.W. Fang

David A. Cooper

John H. Woo
(Woo Law APC)


Facts

Plaintiff Vincent Lau worked as a salesperson for defendants Shining Furniture Manufacturing Group Corporation, GM Cabinet Corporation, GM Furniture, and Angela Feng. In August 2005, plaintiff signed an employment agreement with Feng that provided that plaintiff would receive a commission based on the type of furniture he sold. Lau alleged that after he secured an order for the company worth $4.8 million, he was promised a 4 percent commission, which defendants refused to pay. Plaintiff brought suit for the wage dispute and wrongful termination (forced discharge). The defendants filed a cross-complaint for conversion and violation of trade secrets.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant orally offered to pay plaintiff a salary and a commission ranging from 2 to 5 percent of sales. After he secured an order for the company worth $4.8 million and after he was promised a 4% commission on the order, defendants refused to pay him any commission at all, denying that there was even an agreement. Plaintiff was forced to quit because defendants would not pay him.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The defendants claimed that plaintiff misappropriated trade secrets from defendants.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed $231,645 in lost commission.

Result

The court awarded plaintiff $339,963, plus attorney fees, costs, and interest. The judgment is currently $491,862, according to plaintiff's counsel.

Other Information

Defendant Feng did not appear at trial. According to defense counsel: The defendants' principals, prior to trial, were incarcerated in China on an unrelated matter. They remain incarcerated. The judge decided to go ahead with the trial because there was no indication when the defendants' principals would ever be released from China. Therefore, the case here was tried without any defense witnesses and was essentially a prove-up hearing, similar to a default judgment proceeding. FILING DATE: Dec. 12, 2007.


#87791

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390