Pryor v. Matta CA2/4

Filed 10/22/13 Pryor v. Matta CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

DANNY WAYNE PRYOR, B244149

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MC 021132) v.

BERTO MATTA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carlos P. Baker, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Danny Wayne Pryor, in pro per. Berto Matta, in pro per.

__________________________________

Danny Wayne Pryor appeals from a judgment, following a bench trial, in 1 favor of respondent Berto Matta. We conclude appellant has not met his burden of showing that the trial court erred. Accordingly, we affirm. As an initial matter, we note that appellant’s opening brief violates rule 8.204 of the California Rules of Court, as it fails to concisely and clearly explain the factual and procedural background of the case. (See Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247 [self-represented party must follow rules of appellate procedure].) In addition, the record on appeal is inadequate. For example, appellant included the cover page of the operative complaint, but not the actual pleading. Thus, our consideration of the appeal is greatly hampered by the inadequacy of the briefing and record. Based upon the record and the appellate briefs, we deduce the following facts. In 2003, appellant purchased and developed 18 lots of land in the City of Lancaster. In 2006, appellant’s lender foreclosed on the real property. In 2009, appellant filed for bankruptcy. He also filed mechanic’s liens on the property. On July 8, 2009, respondent purchased the property, and later had the mechanic’s liens released. On December 17, 2009, appellant filed a complaint against numerous parties alleging 11 causes of action, including “breach of covenant,” fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and quiet title. Appellant apparently alleged a civil conspiracy among the defendants, including his lender and respondent, to defraud him of the real