DiFrank v. Champaneri CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Oct 3, 2014 No. B252312Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record, such as a reporter's transcript, to challenge the trial court's factual finding of bad faith.

Issues

Whether the trial court's denial of a motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50 was supported by substantial evidence of bad faith.
Whether an appellant's failure to provide a reporter's transcript of the hearing on a motion requires the appellate court to affirm the trial court's ruling.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the duty of an appellant to provide an adequate record to the court establishing error. Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant.”

“The failure of client in the present appeal to provide a reporter’s transcript, or an authorized substitute for same, makes it impossible for this court to properly opine on the sole issue raised in this appeal”

Filed 10/3/14 DiFrank v. Champaneri CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

JAMES R. DiFRANK, B252312

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VC061462) v.

RAJ CHAMPANERI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed. Gregory Burke, for Defendant and Appellant. James R. DiFrank, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

The present case involves a lawsuit between attorney James DiFrank, a Professional Law Corporation (“lawyer”) and its former client, Raj Champaneri (“client”). Lawyer sued client for attorney fees allegedly owing as a result of lawyer’s representation of client in defense of criminal allegations of bribery, as well as client’s appeal before the State Personnel Board of the termination of his employment with the California Department of Transportation. On July 26, 2013, four days after the final status conference, client moved ex parte, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 426.50, for an order for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint for legal malpractice. After indicating in a tentative decision its intention to grant the motion, the court heard the motion and took the matter under submission. The next day, the court denied the motion, finding that client’s request for relief was not made in good faith. No reporter’s transcript or authorized substitute detailing the arguments presented on the section 426.50 motion was provided to this reviewing court. Both parties having waived their right to a jury trial, the case proceeded as a court trial on August 5, 2013. The record on appeal does not reflect the outcome of the trial. Client’s appeal of the judgment is limited to the trial court’s denial of his ex parte motion for leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint.

DiFrank v. Champaneri CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

RAJ CHAMPANERI,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MOSK, ACTING P.J.

KRIEGLER, J.

AI Brief