Smaili & Associates v. Rawag CA4/3

Filed 4/28/25 Smaili & Associates v. Rawag 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SMAILI & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., G063767 Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, (Super. Ct. Nos. 30-2018-00985248, 30-2018-01014873) v. OPINION SULEIMAN RAWAG,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David J. Hesseltine, Judge. Dismissed. Suleiman Rawag, in pro. per., for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. Cedar Adams and Adam K. Obeid for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents. * * *

THE COURT: Appellant Suleiman Rawag hired respondents Smaili & Associates, P.C., and Jihad M. Smaili to represent him in connection with an auto accident. In the aftermath of that representation, respondents sued appellant for allegedly unpaid fees and appellant filed a cross-complaint against respondents. On June 13, 2023, judgment was entered after a jury trial on the respondents’ operative complaint and appellant’s cross-complaint. The judgment, which includes numerous handwritten interlineations by the trial judge, described the procedural history of the case, various legal rulings, and the jury’s findings by special verdict. Judgment was entered in favor of respondents, awarding them $54,166 and denying relief to appellant on the cross-complaint. The judgment contemplated the future award of costs and postjudgment interest. On August 18, 2023, the court entered an amended judgment. The only differences between the original judgment and the amended judgment are: (1) the handwritten interlineations added by the trial judge to the original judgment were included as typewritten text in the amended judgment; (2) costs in the amount of $20,889.92 were specified; and (3) postjudgment interest in the amount of $1,745.52 was specified. On February 13, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal, indicating that the judgment on appeal was entered on August 18, 2023, i.e., the amended judgment. Due to a variety of procedural missteps by appellant, the appellate record has not yet been filed.