Diaz v. Salinas CA2/5

Filed 3/24/25 Diaz v. Salinas CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

GREG ALAN DIAZ, B332599

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21STCV00426)

MICHAEL SALINAS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. Bowick, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Grace White and Grace White for Plaintiff and Appellant. Messina & Hankin and Theodore M. Hankin for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Greg Diaz (plaintiff) sued defendants Michael Salinas and Tina Salinas (defendants) because he believed they wrongfully held title to real property as security for a loan that he repaid in full. Plaintiff later failed to comply with a trial court discovery order, and the court imposed issue and evidentiary sanctions deeming it established that what he claimed were loan payments were instead rent payments. Largely on the basis of these sanctions, the trial court subsequently granted summary judgment for defendants. We consider whether the grant of summary judgment was proper when plaintiff has not, in this court, challenged the propriety of the discovery sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed suit in January 2021. As summarized by the trial court,1 plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action to quiet title to real property, to cancel a deed, for specific performance, for damages for breach of an oral contract, for damages for fraud and deceit, and for restitution based on violations of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Plaintiff contended he transferred title to his home in Reseda to defendants in 2018 and defendants thereafter paid outstanding property taxes and utility bills. Plaintiff alleged these payments