Pacific Attorney Group v. Akbari CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Oct 11, 2024 No. B330988Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case with prejudice because the appellants failed to provide an adequate record to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting their deficient default judgment package.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice due to the appellants' failure to comply with default judgment requirements.
Whether the appellate record was sufficient to permit meaningful review of the trial court's dismissal order.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because we have an insufficient record to evaluate the appeal, we affirm.”

“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”

“We assume the trial court’s ruling is correct, and nothing in this appeal establishes otherwise.”

Filed 10/11/24 Pacific Attorney Group v. Akbari CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

PACIFIC ATTORNEY GROUP, B330988 PLC, et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 22STCV04535)

GAWAD AKBARI et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael P. Linfield, Judge. Affirmed. Pacific Attorney Group and Michael P. Hollomon, Jr., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents. _________________________________

Appellants ask that we reverse the trial court’s order dismissing their case with prejudice. The trial court dismissed their case because the court concluded that appellants did not comply with the requirements for seeking a default judgment. Because we have an insufficient record to evaluate the appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff-appellants Pacific Attorney Group, PLC, and Payam Mark Shayani (Plaintiffs) do not cite to the record in recounting the facts in their opening brief. Respondents did not file any brief, and consequently, Plaintiffs filed no reply brief. In addition, the record on appeal is 36 pages and does not include Plaintiffs’ filings related to their attempts to obtain a default judgment, the primary basis for the trial court’s order dismissing their case. This thin record precludes us from meaningfully recounting the facts. While we do not have a sufficient record to establish the relevant facts, we provide the facts we ascertain from the docket for some context. On February 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants Ali Akbari, Gawad Akbari, Sajad Akbari, and Nazdup, Inc. On April 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. Three days later, the trial court set an order to show cause regarding dismissal and settlement, and set the hearing for May 19, 2022. On May 19, 2022, the court vacated the hearing date for the order to show cause, and set a case management conference for July 5, 2022. On July 5, 2022, the trial court issued an order to show cause why Plaintiffs should not be sanctioned for failing to appear at the case management conference and for failing to file a proof of service. The court also

Pacific Attorney Group v. Akbari CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

VIRAMONTES, J.

STRATTON, P. J.

WILEY, J.

AI Brief