Global Connector Research Group v. Fischer CA4/3

Filed 12/12/14 Global Connector Research Group v. Fischer CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

GLOBAL CONNECTOR RESEARCH GROUP, INC., G049162 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 06CC08868) v. OPINION FRANK FISCHER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory Munoz, Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part. Frank Fischer, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Kull + Hall, Robert F. Kull and Kevin P. Hall for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

INTRODUCTION This is the third appeal arising out of the judgment entered in Global Connector Research Group, Inc. v. Fischer (Super. Ct. Orange County, No. 06CC08868). In the first appeal, Global Connector Research Group, Inc. v. Fischer (June 27, 2011, G042673) (nonpub. opn.), we affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment in favor of Global Connector Research Group, Inc. (Global), and against Apex Equity Partners, Inc. (Apex), Belgravia Capital Corporation, and Frank Fischer. We refer to our prior unpublished opinion in case No. G042673 as Global Connector I. After remand, the trial court carried out the disposition in Global Connector I in a second amended judgment. Fischer appealed from the second amended judgment. In Global Connector Research Group, Inc. v. Fischer (April 12, 2013, G046844) (nonpub. opn.), we affirmed the second amended judgment and described Fischer’s appeal as close to being frivolous. We refer to our prior unpublished opinion in case No. G046844 as Global Connector II. In this, the third appeal, Fischer challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to modify or amend the second amended judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 (section 1008) and Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d) (section 473(d)). We refer to that motion as the motion to modify. Fischer also challenges, for the third time before us, the award of compensatory and punitive damages against him under the intentional misrepresentation/fraudulent concealment cause of action. We dismiss the appeal to the extent it seeks review of the order denying the motion to modify under section 1008. In all other respects, we affirm the order denying the motion to modify. SUMMARY OF OUR OPINION IN GLOBAL CONNECTOR I The facts are set forth in Global Connector I. The following is a summary of our discussion of the relevant issues from that opinion.