Cypress Center Holding v. Polny CA4/3

Filed 12/22/14 Cypress Center Holding v. Polny 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CYPRESS CENTER HOLDING LLC,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049303

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00544929)

BOHDAN STEPHEN POLNY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge; Robert D. Monarch, Judge (retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed. Bohdan Stephen Polny, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Bohdan Stephen Polny (Polny) appeals a judgment against him in the amount of $222,212.32, plus attorney fees and costs. Polny contends the court erred by overruling his demurrer to the operative complaint, denying his motion to continue the trial to allow him to obtain legal counsel, and entering judgment (following a bench trial) that did “not take into consideration the totality of [the] circumstances and the facts and evidence available to the court at the time of trial.” We affirm.

FACTS

Plaintiff Cypress Center Holding LLC (Cypress) sued Polny and Gina Marie Polny for breach of lease. A copy of the commercial lease was appended to the operative complaint, pursuant to which defendants’ predecessor-in-interest agreed to pay rent to Cypress’s predecessor-in-interest for the use of the leased premises. Cypress alleged that defendants failed to pay rent under the lease and abandoned the premises after an unlawful detainer action was initiated. Cypress requested in excess of $225,000, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. Polny demurred on the grounds that Cypress did not have the legal capacity to sue, the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and Cypress’s attorney had not established an agency relationship with Cypress. Polny’s two-page argument section focused solely on the idea that Cypress’s attorney was not shown to be in a sufficient agency relationship with Cypress to file the complaint. The court overruled the demurrer in July 2012. Trial commenced on August 19, 2013. Three days before, Polny filed a motion for a continuance (styled as a motion in limine). Polny suggested he needed additional time to “obtain competent legal counsel, conduct discovery and prepare for trial on the merits.” Polny asserted his motion could not have been filed earlier due to his involvement in multiple court cases. The court denied the motion.