Bradley v. Carson CA1/1

Filed 11/20/13 Bradley v. Carson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

DONALD BRADLEY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136790 v. FLETCHER CARSON, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV1105143) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Fletcher Carson appeals from the judgment issued after a bench trial. The trial court found defendant personally liable in connection with a loan made to him by plaintiff Donald Bradley. On appeal, defendant asserts the court erred by denying him his right to a jury trial. He also contends the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence and raises various other claims of error. Because we conclude defendant waived his right to a jury trial and has failed to demonstrate the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The essential facts in this case are undisputed. The parties agree that plaintiff began loaning money to defendant in August 2009 in connection with defendant’s business venture. A total of $46,620 was loaned. Defendant promised to pay back that amount, plus an additional $13,310. Plaintiff never received any payment from defendant. The principle issue in dispute is whether defendant is personally responsible for the loan, or whether the loan was made to him in his capacity as an officer of the business.

1

On February 3, 2012, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC). The FAC states causes of action for breach of contract and for common counts. On March 1, 2012, defendant filed a demurrer to the FAC. On April 3, 2012, the trial court overruled defendant’s demurrer to the FAC in its entirety. On April 9, 2012, defendant filed his answer to the FAC. The answer includes a demand for a jury trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631. On August 14, 2012, the trial commenced. Defendant moved for a continuance and asked if the matter would remain a jury trial. The hearing was put forward to the following day. The minutes indicate the trial court had not received any jury fees or any of the required jury documents. On August 15, 2012, the trial court presided over a short bench trial. The proceeding was not transcribed by a court reporter. On August 24, 2012, the trial court filed its amended judgment. The court noted the key issue was whether the money was lent to defendant personally or in his capacity as an officer of the then-defunct corporation. The court found plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendant personally. In reaching its result, the trial court noted: “The parties had a friendly relationship before they entered into this financial relationship. [Defendant] sent [plaintiff] several emails asking for money, telling him he could not afford to pay his rent, his bills, and his cost of living. He told [plaintiff] that the money ‘will not be an investment.’ [Citation.] Some of the funds were cash advances that [plaintiff] handed to [defendant]. It is true, as [defendant] points out, that all defendant’s emails were signed ‘Fletcher Carson, Chief Technology Officer, Verismart Software, Inc.,’ yet this is not enough to shield [defendant] from personal liability. If [defendant] wished to make these funds clearly a corporate debt, he had the knowledge and the wherewithal to document the transactions as such, as he did with other transactions involving funds he received from plaintiff and other investors. [Citation.] If defendant wished to protect himself from personal liability, it was his job to do so. Otherwise, plaintiff was entitled to believe that he was dealing