Project 7 Security Group v. Johnson CA2/5

Filed 1/15/26 Project 7 Security Group v. Johnson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

PROJECT 7 SECURITY GROUP B341446 et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 23STCV24878) v.

MICHAEL JOHNSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jon R. Takasugi, Judge. Affirmed. The Fullman Firm, Adam C. Fullman, Christopher J. Peters, and Sam Dehbozorgi for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Michael Johnson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

We know defendant and respondent Michael Johnson (Johnson) sued his former employer, plaintiff and appellant Project 7 Security Group, and its principal, plaintiff and appellant Brandon Gatewood (collectively, plaintiffs). We know Johnson obtained a default judgment. We do not know many of the details of this earlier action, however, because of the sparse record plaintiffs has provided on appeal. Nearly four years after Johnson obtained the default judgment, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the judgment claiming improper service. (That motion is not included in the appellate record we have been given.) The trial court appears to have heard that motion and denied it, but the appellate record includes no record of what transpired at that hearing—not even a minute order. Notwithstanding the denial of their motion to vacate the judgment, plaintiffs persisted: they filed an independent lawsuit to vacate the same judgment. Johnson moved to dismiss that lawsuit, arguing it was frivolous and attempted to “re-litigate” the very same issue the court had earlier decided in denying plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the default judgment. Accompanying Johnson’s motion was a declaration that stated, without elaboration, that he “provided evidence” when successfully opposing plaintiffs’ motion to vacate. The trial court granted Johnson’s motion to dismiss. Once again, we have no transcript of the hearing on Johnson’s motion because plaintiffs have not provided one (nor have they provided a settled statement or other adequate substitute). So, we do not know what was argued, what may have been conceded, and what testimony may have been presented. We do have, however, a subsequently issued minute order that does not detail what