Chaney v. Bond CA2/8

Filed 11/6/14 Chaney v. Bond CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LOREN CHANEY, B248738

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC477167) v.

STEVEN BOND,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David L. Minning, Judge. Affirmed.

Loren Chaney, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, and Dean A. Rocco for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiff and appellant Loren Chaney appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his action for failure to comply with discovery orders. Plaintiff has failed to designate an adequate record and has failed to affirmatively show reversible error. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, who represented himself below, apparently filed this action alleging defendant Steven Bond defamed him at his place of work which ultimately resulted in plaintiff’s wrongful termination. Some sort of discovery dispute arose. At a hearing on February 25, 2013, the court heard from defense counsel that plaintiff’s further responses to discovery had been received late, and that plaintiff had not conferred about dates for his deposition as previously ordered by the court. Plaintiff apparently disputed defendant’s contentions. The court ordered plaintiff’s case dismissed “without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders.” On May 14, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal which states, as relevant here, that plaintiff “hereby appeals from the February 25th 2013 order of the court in favor of defendant Steven Bond Written Notice of Ruling was served by mail on or about March 15th 2013. [¶] Plaintiff further appeals from the order and any and all orders subsumed in or render [sic] appealable by it.” Plaintiff gave notice that no reporter’s transcript was available for the February 25, 2013 hearing (apparently the hearing was not transcribed), and that an appendix would be presented in lieu of a clerk’s transcript. Plaintiff’s appendix consists of only three documents: (1) a letter from plaintiff dated January 26, 2013, to defense counsel regarding deposition scheduling; (2) the court’s February 25, 2013 minute order imposing terminating sanctions; and (3) the judgment of dismissal file-stamped March 15, 2013, and served by defendant. Defendant’s appendix consists of one document: plaintiff’s notice of appeal filed on May 14, 2013. In light of the de minimus record presented to this court, we are unable to provide any further summary of the material facts and procedure.