LAX Master Limousine Services
Filed 3/3/08 LAX Master Limousine Services CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
LAX MASTER LIMOUSINE SERVICES et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ABULGHASEM AHMADPOUR et al., Defendants and Appellants. | 2d Civil No. B192011 (Super. Ct. No. SC036080) (Ventura County) |
Abulghasem Ahmadpour, M & A International, and A & M Supertime Transport appeal from a post-judgment order expunging and canceling a substitution of attorney and an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment. Appellants claim that the evidence does not support the court's findings and that the court was biased against them. A & M Supertime Transport further claims that the court and counsel below "completely overlooked . . . Civil Code section 1195." We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In its January 11, 2005, judgment, the court awarded respondents LAX Master Limousine Services and Mohammad Ershadi general damages of $45,200 and punitive damages of $40,000. Following a new trial limited to the issue of punitive damages, the court awarded respondents punitive damages of $68,700, in a judgment filed on October 27, 2005. The amended abstract of judgment, issued on November 1, 2005, reflected that appellants owed respondents $113,900.
Several months later, respondent Ershadi learned that on February 28, 2006, someone had filed a substitution of attorney and an acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment purportedly bearing his signature. On April 10, 2006, respondents filed an ex parte application for an order canceling and expunging the substitution of attorney and acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment (the challenged documents). The court ordered counsel for respondents to give opposing counsel notice of a hearing on the motion.
Both sides appeared with counsel and presented evidence at the hearing. Appellants' expert witness, graphologist Cynthia Norris, testified regarding her questioned document examination. Norris concluded that Ershadi had signed the challenged documents. Ershadi testified that he did not.
Ahmadpour testified that Ershadi accepted $5,000 from him "instead of [$113,900]," because something was better than nothing. Ershadi testified that he did not accept $5,000 in full settlement of the judgment.
On May 22, 2006, the court issued an order canceling and expunging the challenged documents. The court's order stated that the challenged documents were forged and that the abstracts of judgment filed in 2005 remained valid.
DISCUSSION
Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings that the challenged documents were forged. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must presume there is evidence to support every finding unless the appellant demonstrates otherwise and we draw all reasonable inferences from the record to support the judgment. (Glendale Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Marina View Heights Dev. Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 152; Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1632-1633.) We must treat all evidence unfavorable to the judgment or order as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact. (GHK Associates v. Mayer Group, Inc. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 856, 872.) The trier of fact is entitled to reject even uncontradicted evidence. (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1028.) Appellants have failed to demonstrate that there is not sufficient evidence to support the findings that the challenged documents were forged.
In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings that the challenged documents were forged, appellants assert that graphologist Norris's testimony should have "completely carried the day and supported the validity of the full satisfaction of judgment." Although Norris concluded that Ershadi signed the challenged documents, the court was not required to accept her testimony, even if it had been uncontradicted. (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc., supra, 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1028.) Here, it was contradicted by Ershadi's testimony that he did not sign the challenged documents. Sufficient evidence supports the court's findings that the documents were forged.
Appellants further contend that the trial court was biased against them. The record does not support that contention.
Finally, appellant A & M Supertime Transport argues that Civil Code section 1195, which "allows a notary to notarize the signature of a witness . . . even though the actual signer" is not then before the notary, "was completely overlooked by the court and counsel at the hearing" below. Because the parties did not address that statute below, we will not address it. Further, section 1195 lacks relevance where the court accepted Ershadi's testimony that he did not sign the challenged documents.
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Steven Hintz, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Abulghasem Ahmadpour and M & A International, in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants Abulghasem Ahmadpour and M & A International.
Neil C. Evans for Defendant and Appellant A & M Supertime Transport.
Steven M. Neimand for Plaintiffs and Respondents Mohammad Ershadi and LAX Master Limousine Services.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
