Pryor v. ITEC Financial CA2/2

Filed 6/23/14 Pryor v. ITEC Financial CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

DANNY WAYNE PRYOR, B249302

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC435130) v.

ITEC FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. Affirmed.

Danny Wayne Pryor, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Eberhardt Villanueva, Chad A. Eberhardt, J. Nigel Villanueva for Defendants and Respondents.

___________________________________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Danny Wayne Pryor appeals from a judgment following a bench trial in favor of defendants and respondents ITEC Financial, Inc. (ITEC), Southcoast Properties, LLC (Southcoast), Nina Patel, and Mani Govindan. Pryor also appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for new trial. Pryor’s appeal suffers from a number of defects, chief among them the failure to provide an adequate record. We affirm the judgment and the order denying the motion for new trial. BACKGROUND It is impossible to determine the relevant factual or procedural background from the record presented. For example, the apparently operative second amended complaint does not appear in the record, nor does any prior iteration of the complaint. From the briefs and the meager record, we discern that Pryor’s second amended complaint stated causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) usury, (5) cancellation of deeds of foreclosure, and (6) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. Pryor claimed that, beginning in 2006, he began negotiating with Patel for a series of loans intended to finance several real estate development projects, and eventually entered into agreements documenting the loans. According to Pryor, defendants manipulated the loan disbursement process so as to encourage Pryor to default on the loans. As each real estate development neared completion, defendants refused to release any further loan proceeds and blocked Pryor’s attempts to refinance. They then recorded notices of default and initiated foreclosures, eventually acquiring title to each property. Pryor alleged he suffered $15,000,000 in damages. A bench trial was conducted over four days in February 2013. During trial, the court dismissed the fourth through sixth causes of action. The court found for defendants on the remaining causes of action. Following the trial court’s ruling, Pryor moved for a new trial. The court denied the motion on April 25, 2013. Pryor timely appealed.