Sanwa Technologies v. Titus CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Mar 2, 2026 No. B347323Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment and post-judgment orders, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to demonstrate trial court error and failed to properly appeal the post-judgment costs award.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment when the appellant failed to provide the moving papers, opposition, or evidence in the appellate record.
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review a post-judgment costs award that was not separately appealed.
Whether the appellant was denied due process regarding service of filings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Titus has not met his burden of showing the trial court erred, we affirm.”

“Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].”

“The fatal flaw with these arguments is that Titus has not appealed from the order awarding costs, nor has he appealed from the amended judgment.”

Filed 3/2/26 Sanwa Technologies v. Titus CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

SANWA TECHNOLOGIES, B347323 INC., Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 24SMCV03836 v.

PAUL JOSEPH TITUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Edward Moreton, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Paul Joseph Titus, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Ross, Wolcott, Teinert & Prout, and Roy Silva for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Plaintiff Sanwa Technologies, Inc. (Sanwa) filed a complaint against defendants Paul Joseph Titus and Hayat Bi1 alleging causes of action for rescission, “declaratory judgment,” and permanent injunction. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sanwa on all three claims. On appeal, Titus contends that the trial court committed various legal errors but has not provided an adequate record for us to review his arguments. Because Titus has not met his burden of showing the trial court erred, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Most of the relevant filings and documents relating to this case are not contained in the record. Accordingly, much of the background information that follows is taken from the trial court’s case register. In August 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants in the trial court. Although that complaint is not in the appellate record, the judgment indicates that the complaint alleged causes of action for rescission, declaratory judgment, and permanent injunction. The contract that formed the basis of the legal dispute between Sanwa and Titus is likewise not in the record. Defendants filed an answer and cross-complaint. Plaintiff demurred to the cross-complaint. The answer, cross-complaint, demurrer, and order adjudicating the demurrer are not in the record. In January 2025, Sanwa filed a motion for summary judgment against Titus. The court granted the motion in April

1 Hayat Bi is not a party to this appeal.

Sanwa Technologies v. Titus CA2/4

AI Brief

PAUL JOSEPH TITUS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TAMZARIAN, J.

ZUKIN, P. J.

MORI, J.

AI Brief