Kodama v. Vega CA2/3

Filed 11/14/14 Kodama v. Vega CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ANICIA P. KODAMA, B247991

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC440126) v.

LIRIO A. VEGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Lirio A. Vega, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. United Legal Team, Johnny S. Ascano; and Khinh V. Yam for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

INTRODUCTION Defendant Lirio A. Vega appeals from the judgment entered after trial to the court. She challenges the orders denying her motions to reopen evidence and for new trial. We conclude defendant has not demonstrated abuse of trial court discretion in denying either motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The instant lawsuit stems from a series of financial and insurance transactions in which defendant served as financial advisor and insurance agent for plaintiff Anicia P. Kodama and her late husband, Henry T. Kodama. Plaintiff’s complaint sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty, elder financial abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 15610.30 & 15657.5), fraud, constructive fraud, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of various provisions of the Insurance Code. The case was tried to the bench over the course of two days but lasted fewer than eight hours. Plaintiff put on two witnesses and testified on her own behalf with the assistance of a certified court translator from Tagalog to English. After plaintiff rested, the court turned to defendant’s attorney, Lloyd I. Silverberg, and stated: “Call your first witness, if you would, please, on the defendant’s side.” Silverberg called defendant, who testified in her defense. After plaintiff’s attorney concluded his cross-examination of defendant, the following discussion occurred: “The court: . . . Redirect based on cross-examination if you would please. [¶] MR. SILVERBERG: Nothing further. [¶] THE COURT: Thank you. [¶] May the witness step down and be excused? [¶] MR. SILVERBERG: Yes. [¶] MR. ASCANO [plaintiff’s attorney]: Thank you. [¶] THE COURT: Thank you, Ma’am. You may step down. You are excused. [¶] Do you have any further witnesses to offer on the defendant’s side please? [¶] MR. SILVERBERG: No, your honor. [¶] THE COURT: Thank you. [¶] Defendant, with the exception of admission of exhibits, rests? [¶] MR. SILVERBERG: Yes. [¶] . . . [¶] THE COURT: . . . Both sides have rested with the exception of admission of exhibits? [¶] MR. ASCANO: Yes, sir. [¶] MR. SILVERBERG: Yes, your honor.” (Italics added.)