Park Wilshire HOA v. Dosso
Filed 8/1/13 Park Wilshire HOA v. Dosso CA2/4
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 FOUR
PARK WILSHIRE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
AHMED L. DOSSO,
Defendant and
Appellant.
B236691
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. SC109745)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Cesar C. Sarmiento, Judge. Affirmed.
Ahmed L. Dosso, in pro. per., for
Defendant and Appellant.
Kulik, Gottesman & Siegel, Glen
L. Kulik and Mitchell S. Brachman for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
SUMMARY
Appellant Ahmed
L. Dosso is the owner of a unit, apparently a condominium, in a building on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles. Respondent Park Wilshire Homeowners
Association (HOA) is a homeowners association established by covenants,
conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) governing the property. The HOA is authorized to, and has, imposed
assessments on Dosso as a unit owner.
Pursuant to the CC&R’s, failure to pay assessments when due may lead
to enforcement proceedings, as it did in this case. Dosso was substantially late in paying
assessments. The HOA sued him to enforce
the secured lien it held under the CC&R’s with respect to these late
payments. Dosso answered the complaint
and filed a cross-complaint in which he sought damages for breach of contract,
various torts, and other relief.
After settlement
efforts failed, the case was tried to the court. The court found in favor of the HOA and against
Dosso.
DISCUSSION
Dosso raises two
issues: first, that the trial court
erred in granting the HOA’s in limine motion to exclude evidence relating to
Dosso’s cross-appeal and defenses; second, that it erred in denying his
As to the first,
while the HOA did move to exclude evidence, its motion was not granted. According to its representations on appeal,
which are not contested, the trial court did not restrict Dosso in his
presentation of evidence. The issue,
therefore is moot.
We turn to the
second issue. The complaint was filed in
September 2010
title="">[2]. Dosso’s answer, which included claims for
various torts, was filed in February 2011.
A case
management conference was held on March 2, 2011, at which time the case was
set for trial on July 26, 2011. The case was mediated on May 25, 2011, but the mediation was unsuccessful. At a hearing on June
3, 2011, the trial court received a report of non-agreement from the mediator
and informed the parties that the July 26,
2011
trial date would stand. At the July 18, 2011 final status conference, the trial court made a
further effort to settle the case, ordering a mandatory settlement conference
before another judge to be conducted the next day. No settlement was reached.
On July 21, 2011, Dosso filed his ex parte motion “for continuance for
trial date and/or amendment to answer.â€
In it, he said that some progress toward settlement had been made and he
was reviewing a proposal he received the day before, and that he may have a
counter proposal. He also said the
negotiation process “is [time-]consuming and [had taken] away from solid
preparation.†He said he was asking the
court to allow him to amend his Answer.
Dosso did not indicate how he proposed to amend his answer and did not
elaborate on the lack of time. His motion
was denied on the day it was filed. In
his Opening Brief, he argues that the continuance was needed because of the
unanticipated settlement conference on July 19,
2011,
and states that when the settlement judge recommended that he (Dosso) present a
settlement proposal within three days, he “then realized the necessity for
trial continuance.†He described the
settlement conference and follow-up as an “unforeseen obstacle to the
preparation of trial†that met the requirements of California Rules of Court,
rule 3.1332(c)(7).
An order denying
a request for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Forthmann
v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 984.)
No abuse is shown in this case.
The trial date had been set for some five months when Dosso presented
his ex parte motion for continuance.
Other than vague references to being distracted by the mandatory
settlement conference, Dosso offers no justification for this eve-of-trial
request for delay. From the record
before us, we do not find that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying
the request to continue the trial.
DISPOSITION
The judgment
is affirmed. Respondent HOA to have its
costs on appeal.
EPSTEIN,
P. J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
The HOA was represented by counsel at trial as
it is on appeal; Dosso represented himself at trial as he does on appeal.
Like many other pertinent documents, the
complaint is not in the record on appeal.
We infer its contents from the responding pleadings, which are before
us, and the failure to dispute the factual arguments pertaining to its
contents.
