1

Filed 11/18/22 Vidal v. Jang CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JACQUELINE VIDAL,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ADRIAN JANG,

Defendant and Respondent.

 B316210

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TC029153)

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Thomas D. Long, Judge. Affirmed.

Jacqueline Vidal, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. 

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
2

* * * * * *

A former employee sued her former employer 11 years after 

the last evidence of her employ there. The trial court granted 

summary judgment on the ground that her claim was timebarred. This was correct, so we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

I. Facts

In 2007, Jacqueline Vidal (plaintiff) started working as a 

secretary for Adrian Jang (Jang)2 and Michael H. Lee (Lee), who 

jointly owned a company called People’s Financial, Inc. Plaintiff 

provided ledger sheets showing her employment between May 14, 

2007, and September 14, 2007. 

II. Procedural Background

On May 15, 2018, plaintiff sued Jang, Lee and People’s 

Financial, Inc. (collectively, defendants) for the intentional tort of 

“refus[ing] to pay” her wages. She sought $96,000. 

On June 3, 2021, Jang filed a motion for summary 

judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s lawsuit was time-barred 

because it was filed nearly 11 years after she left his employ. In 

opposing the motion, the sole evidence plaintiff tendered were 

declarations from herself and her husband, in which they both 

indicated that Jang would call “every three or six months” with 

1 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, did not provide any 

pertinent documents from the trial court that would enable us to 

evaluate the merits of her appeal. Rather than declare her 

appeal to be waived, we ordered the pertinent documents from 

the trial court and now take judicial notice of them so that we 

may consider plaintiff’s appeal on the merits. (Evid. Code, §§ 

459, 452.)

2 Jang was originally and erroneously sued as “Adrian Jung.”
3

“promises of paying [plaintiff] for [her] services,” and that those 

calls ended “two years” after she left his employ. 

After Jang filed a reply brief, the trial court granted 

summary judgment on the grounds that Jang’s complaint was 

filed long after the applicable statutes of limitation and that she 

could not avail herself of equitable tolling. 

Plaintiff filed this timely appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in granting Jang’s 

motion for summary judgment. “A party in a civil case is entitled 

to summary judgment if, among other things, he can show that 

the undisputed facts ‘establish[] an affirmative defense’ ‘as a 

matter of law.’ ([Code Civ. Proc.] § 437c, subds. (o)(2) & (c).) 

Thus, summary judgment is appropriate where the undisputed 

facts establish that a claim is barred by the statute of limitations. 

(Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1112; Romano v. 

Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, 487.)” (Arrow 

Highway Steel, Inc. v. Dubin (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 876, 883.)3

We may only look at the admissible evidence submitted in 

support of, and in opposition to, summary judgment (§ 437c, 

subd. (d); Forest Lawn Memorial-Park Assn. v. Superior Court 

(2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 1, 8); the parties’ unsworn arguments in 

their motion and opposing papers are not evidence (e.g., Church 

of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 656, 

disapproved on other grounds in Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer 

Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68, fn. 5).

The undisputed facts establish that plaintiff’s claim is 

barred by the statute of limitations. Although plaintiff alleges in 

3 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure unless otherwise indicated.
4

her pleadings that she worked for Jang until 2009, the evidence

she submitted only suggests employment without payment 

through September 14, 2007—plaintiff includes photocopies of 

two checks made out to her in 2007 onto which someone has 

scrawled the word “bounced,” but there is no declaration 

indicating that those checks did, in fact, “bounce.” She also 

attached checks written to her in 2008, but the 2008 checks are 

not issued by any defendant and she does not explain how those 

checks are connected to any defendant. It is not entirely clear, 

given there is no written employment contract in evidence,

whether the statute of limitations for plaintiff’s claim is three 

years—the limitations period for a claim of intentional 

nonpayment of wages under the Labor Code (§ 338, subd. (a)), or 

two years—the limitations period for breach of an oral contract (§ 

339). Because the limitations period for Labor Code violations or 

for breach of an oral contract to pay wages starts to tick upon 

nonpayment up to and including the last date of nonpayment 

(Cuadra v. Millan (1998) 17 Cal.4th 855, 859, disapproved on 

other grounds in Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 16, fn. 4; 

Professional Collection Consultants v. Lauron (2017) 8 

Cal.App.5th 958, 974), plaintiff had until at the latest September 

14, 2010—three years after September 14, 2007—to file suit. Her 

claim filed in May of 2018 is late.

Plaintiff argues that her claim is timely if we apply the 

doctrine of equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is a judicially

created doctrine that extends or suspends a statute of limitations 

“‘“as necessary to ensure fundamental practicality and fairness.”’” 

(Saint Francis Memorial Hospital v. State Dept. of Public Health

(2020) 9 Cal.5th 710, 719 (Saint Francis), quoting McDonald v. 

Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 99
5

(McDonald).) The application of equitable tolling requires a 

showing of three elements: (1) timely notice to the defendant; (2) 

lack of prejudice to the defendant; and (3) “reasonable and good 

faith conduct on the part of the plaintiff.” (McDonald, at p. 102.)

Plaintiff offers what boils down to two reasons why 

equitable tolling renders her claim timely.

First, she argues that Jang’s postemployment calls to her 

promising payment lulled her into a sense of inaction, such that 

it is inequitable to expect her to sue him while he is promising 

her that suit might not be necessary. Even if we assume for 

purposes of argument that promises by a person who has lied to a 

plaintiff in the past gives that person reason to delay suit (and 

hence qualifies for equitable tolling), Jang’s calls here lasted for 

only two years, and then stopped. Because the basis for tolling 

would stop with his false promises, these calls would extend the 

time to file at most to 2012—2007 plus two years plus the threeyear limitations period. Plaintiff’s 2018 lawsuit is still too late.

Second, plaintiff argues that Jang engaged in efforts to 

“avoid” Vidal by “engag[ing] in criminal activity” (such as using a 

last name with a one-letter difference from the name she knew 

him by) to prevent “disclos[ure] of his whereabouts,” including by 

living outside of the country between 2009 and the time of her 

lawsuit. But the sole evidence plaintiff offered in support of her 

claim was her declaration that she was “[un]able to contact

[Jang]” until around the time she filed her complaint. And Jang

offered uncontradicted evidence that he was in the United States 

between 2009 and 2020 except for brief vacations. These 

undisputed facts do not satisfy the requirements of equitable 

tolling. As noted above, a plaintiff invoking the doctrine must 

engage in “reasonable and good faith conduct,” which includes an 
6

analysis of “whether that party’s actions were fair, proper, and 

sensible in light of the circumstances.” (Saint Francis, supra, 9 

Cal.5th at pp. 728-729.) It is undisputed, however, that Jang was 

in California the whole time and that plaintiff was able to find 

him in 2018. Given that California law permits tolling at most 

when a person is out of the state (e.g., § 351), and that limitations 

periods exist to give plaintiffs time to find persons within the 

State, applying equitable tolling on the showing made here would 

cause this “narrow” exception intended for “‘unusual 

circumstances’” to swallow the general rule that limitations 

periods are controlling. (Saint Francis, at p. 730, quoting 

Wallace v. Kato (2007) 549 U.S. 384, 396). 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Jang is entitled to his costs on 

appeal. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. 

______________________, J.

HOFFSTADT

We concur:

_________________________, P. J.

LUI

_________________________, J.

CHAVEZ