Bolgar
v. Harris Properties
Filed
2/26/13 Bolgar v.
Harris Properties CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
ONE
PETER BOLGAR,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
HARRIS PROPERTIES, INC., et
al.,
Defendants and
Respondents.
B240376
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. BC464010)
APPEAL from
orders of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County.
Michael L. Stern, Judge.
Affirmed.
______
Peter
Bolgar, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Gaglione,
Dolan & Kaplan and Jack M. LaPedis for Defendants and Respondents Harris
Properties, Inc., Glen-Donald Condominiums, Inc., Diane Lortie-Dudasik and
Martin Simard.
Hatton,
Petrie & Stackler, Arthur R. Petrie II, and John A. McMahon for Defendant
and Respondent Hatton, Petrie & Stackler.
______
On June 21, 2011,
Peter Bolgar filed suit in propria persona
against Harris Properties, Inc., “Glen Donald Co. Op. Building, Inc.,†“Diana
L. Dodasic,†“Martin Simath,†and the law firm of Hatton, Petrie & Stackler
APC (hereafter “Hattonâ€).
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] On August 22, 2011, Bolgar filed a motion for entry of
judgment by default against all defendants.
Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the
does not contain an order ruling on the motion.
The trial court’s docket reflects that as of May 24, 2012, no default has ever been entered for any
party.
On November 15, 2011, Bolgar filed a
motion “to implement the rule and law for default against defendants,â€
apparently seeking entry of default or default
Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s
transcript does not contain an order ruling on the motion.
On December 27, 2011, Bolgar filed a
purportedly entered on December 21,
2011. Pursuant to Bolgar’s
designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript contains neither an
order ruling on the motion nor the putative underlying order that he was
seeking to vacate.
On April 4, 2012, the trial court entered
a minute order denying Bolgar’s motion to vacate an order that was purportedly
entered on March 7, 2012. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the
record on appeal, the clerk’s
transcript contains neither his motion nor the putative underlying order that
he was seeking to vacate.
On April 4, 2012, Bolgar filed a notice
of appeal from the “default judgment†entered on an unspecified date and
apparently from some “other†order entered on an unspecified date, apparently
relating in some manner to service of process.
The trial court’s docket reflects that on September 26, 2011, some defendant filed a motion to
quash. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation
of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript contains neither the motion nor
any order ruling on it.
Pursuant to
Government Code section 68081, we invited the parties to submit supplemental
briefs addressing the issue of whether the appeal should be dismissed because
it does not seek review of an appealable judgment or order.
Bolgar
filed a supplemental brief with several attachments: (1) a declaration from an individual who
claims to have served documents for Bolgar; (2) a notice of ruling
that was filed on March 8, 2012; (3) a notice of ruling that was filed on
April 4, 2012; (4) a vexatious
litigant prefiling order that was entered against Bolgar on March 15,
2012; and (5) a judgment of dismissal with prejudice as to Hatton that
was entered on May 15, 2012, to which is attached an order entered on
March 15, 2012, granting Hatton’s special motion to strike.
The notice
of appeal states that Bolgar is appealing from a default judgment, but the
trial court’s docket reflects that no default judgment has been entered against
any party. Bolgar presents no argument
to the contrary.
The notice
of appeal also states that Bolgar is appealing from some “other†order entered
on an unspecified date. The record on
appeal, as augmented, contains two appealable orders that were entered
before Bolgar filed his notice of appeal.
An order granting a special motion to strike is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd.
(i).) A vexatious litigant prefiling
order is an injunction. (
(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77, 85.)
An order granting an injunction is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd.
(a)(6).)
“The notice
of appeal must be liberally construed.â€
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) Accordingly, we construe the notice of appeal
as appealing from both (1) the vexatious litigant prefiling order entered
against Bolgar on March 15, 2012,
and (2) the order entered on March 15,
2012, granting Hatton’s special motion to strike. Bolgar’s notice of appeal was timely filed as
to both of those orders.
Bolgar’s
briefs on appeal contain no arguments for the conclusion that the trial court
erred by entering the prefiling order or by granting Hatton’s special motion to
strike. Also, apart from the orders
themselves, the record on appeal contains no documents relating to the trial
court’s decision to enter the orders, so the record is inadequate to
demonstrate error and prejudice. In
order to prevail on appeal, the appellant must present sufficient argument and
legal authority (Niko v. Foreman
(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368) and a sufficient record (
206 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362) to demonstrate prejudicial error. We consequently must affirm both orders.
DISPOSITION
The
prefiling order entered against Bolgar on March 15, 2012, is affirmed. The order entered on March 15, 2012, granting Hatton’s special
motion to strike is affirmed.
Respondents shall recover their costs of appeal.
NOT TO
BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO,
P. J. CHANEY,
J.
quotation marks around the names of certain defendants because they claim that
the names by which they are identified in the complaint are erroneous.
the record on appeal to include the documents referenced as (2) through (5)
above, which were attached to the supplemental brief filed by
Bolgar on January 30, 2012. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
