Nabors Internat. Finance v. Lawyers Aset Research Serv. CA2/8

Filed 7/3/14 Nabors Internat. Finance v. Lawyers Aset Research Serv. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

NABORS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE, B246444 INC., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BC444218)

v.

LAWYERS ASSET RESEARCH SERVICE, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge. Affirmed.

Keiter Appellate Law and Mitchell Keiter for Defendants and Appellants.

The David Firm, Henry S. David and Dana J. Meepos for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

We affirm an order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment that was entered after the trial court struck the defendants’ answer for discovery failures. FACTS In August 2010, Nabors International Finance, Inc. (Nabors) filed an action against Lawyers Asset Research Service, LLC (LARS)1 alleging that LARS had obtained approximately $270,000 rightfully belonging to Nabors. In January 2011, Nabors filed its operative first amended complaint alleging causes of action listed respectively as follows: breach of written contract; money had and received; conversion; fraud; fraudulent transfer; constructive fraudulent transfer; claim on behalf of creditors based on third-party’s illegal distribution of debtor’s assets; claim on behalf of creditors for improper distributions; and breach of fiduciary duty. Nabors’s action consisted of allegations that LARS misused a limited power of attorney to get a state franchise tax board to cancel a tax refund check payable to Nabors, and to issue a new check payable to LARS. LARS then deducted a fee, the $270,000 noted above, for finding Nabors’s “lost” or “unclaimed” or “abandoned” asset, and forwarded the remaining amount on to Nabors. In February 2011, LARS answered the first amended complaint. On August 31, 2011, the trial court entered an order granting Nabors’s motion for summary adjudication of issues on the first through third causes of action. The trial court’s summary adjudication ruling became moot when, on December 13, 2011, the court ordered LARS’s answer to be stricken as a terminating sanction for its failure to comply with discovery orders, and entered LARS’s default. On December 13, 2011, the trial court entered a court judgment by default based upon Nabors’s prove-up testimony and other evidence. On December 15, 2011, Nabors served LARS with notice of entry of judgment, thereby beginning the 60 day period for filing a notice of appeal from the default judgment. By our calculation, the time to file a notice of appeal from the default judgment expired in mid-February 2012. LARS did not file a timely notice of appeal from the default judgment.