You v. Rho CA4/3

Filed 10/8/24 You v. Rho CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JU YOUNG YOU et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G062839

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-01207866)

YOUNG CHUL RHO et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Shawn Nelson, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Andrew Kim and Andrew Kim for Plaintiffs and Appellants. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

Plaintiffs Ju Young You, Yunsue K. Kang, and Mi Seon Yoon Kim appeal from a judgment after a bench trial on their complaint against defendants Young Chul Rho, Young Sim Rho, and C&H Trust Deed Services. On the morning of the bench trial, plaintiffs, proceeding in propria persona, announced they were ready for trial. When the trial took place in the afternoon, plaintiffs indicated they were not adequately prepared because they did not believe the trial would go forward and requested a continuance. The court denied the request for a continuance and proceeded with the trial, but plaintiffs were not able to present any evidence. The court accordingly granted defendants’ motion for directed verdict. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for new trial, which the court denied. On appeal, plaintiffs contend the court erred by proceeding with the trial because it was obvious they were not prepared. We discern no error in the court’s decision to proceed with the trial and affirm the judgment STATEMENT OF FACTS1 At the outset, we note our review in this case is impeded by deficiencies in plaintiffs’ brief and the record on appeal. Plaintiffs recite various facts regarding the foreclosure sale of their home by one of the defendants and defendants’ subsequent unlawful detainer action against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not cite to the record to support these facts, and the record on appeal does not include plaintiffs’ complaint or other relevant pleadings. We accordingly do not consider these facts and cannot summarize the details of the underlying dispute. Plaintiffs also do not provide a coherent factual summary of all relevant facts concerning their motion for new trial or