Clark v. Brown CA2/1

Filed 3/7/14 Clark v. Brown CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

PAMELA CLARK, B246098

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TC025700) v.

TANYA BROWN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William P. Barry, Judge. Affirmed. Pamela Clark, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Detrick Law Office and Brian S. Detrick for Defendants and Respondents. ——————————

SUMMARY Pamela Clark, a self-represented litigant, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of her sister and father, defendants and respondents, Tanya Brown and Albert Moore, Sr. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Given the scant appellate record, no extensive overview of the background of this case is either necessary or possible. The following facts appear from the 37-page clerk’s transcript which, together with snippets from Clark’s deposition,1 and the reporter’s transcript from a hearing on the motions for summary judgment, form the appellate record. After her husband’s death in November 2002, Clark experienced extreme emotional distress and instability. Clark asked Brown and Moore to manage her financial affairs, including at least $180,000 in proceeds from insurance policies taken out by Clark’s husband. They agreed to do so and assured Clark all funds would be put into an account set up and used for her benefit. Clark began abusing drugs shortly after her husband’s death, and continued doing so for the next eight years. During 2003, Clark agreed to loan at least $42,000 each to Brown and Moore, each of whom assured Clark the funds would be repaid. By November 2010, Clark had both obtained sobriety and learned that Brown and Moore had “‘pillaged’ vast sums of money” from her. On August 29, 2011, Clark filed this action against Brown and Moore alleging causes of action for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, economic duress and constructive fraud. Eventually, Brown and Moore each moved for summary judgment. Clark filed no written opposition to either motion. Clark has been represented by counsel at various points since early in this proceeding, and was represented by counsel at the