Chapple v. Simmons CA1/1

Filed 9/28/15 Chapple v. Simmons CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

WILLIAM J. CHAPPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A144261 v. (Contra Costa County EDGAR H. SIMMONS, Super. Ct. No. MSC1302005) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff William Chapple, appearing in propria persona, appeals from a judgment entered against him after a bench trial on his claims against defendant Edgar Simmons. Chapple sued Simmons, a process server, alleging that Simmons’s failure to serve and file documents in a separate action brought by Chapple resulted in that action’s dismissal. On appeal, Chapple challenges the trial court’s determination that he failed to establish Simmons’s liability and the court’s “application of the law of contributory negligence.” As Chapple has failed to provide a record sufficient to evaluate the court’s ruling or any cogent legal arguments in support of his claims, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2013, Chapple brought this suit against Simmons and Stephen Weir, the former Clerk-Recorder of Contra Costa County.1 The complaint alleged 14 causes of

1 The trial court sustained the demurrer of the subsequent Clerk-Recorder, Joseph Canciamilla, and the Clerk-Recorder is not a party to this appeal.

1

action,2 most under various provisions of the Business and Professions Code that govern registration requirements for process servers. (See generally Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22350 et seq.) The complaint alleges that on September 9, 2012, Chapple met with Simmons and asked him to file and serve various documents from a wrongful-eviction action Chapple had previously filed in Alameda County, Chapple v. Udinsky (Super. Ct. Alameda County, 2012, No. RG11572749) (Udinsky). A case management order attached to the complaint shows that in July 2012, the Udinsky trial court found that Chapple had failed timely to serve the complaint on certain defendants or file a proof of service and ordered Chapple to show cause why that action should not be dismissed. Simmons then allegedly agreed to serve and file the relevant documents in Udinsky, accepted $305 in payment, and issued an invoice, but he failed to perform the promised services, resulting in Udinsky’s dismissal After the trial court here overruled Simmons’s demurrer to the complaint, a one- day bench trial took place in October 2014. The minute order from the trial indicates that the parties, who both appeared in propria persona, were “sworn and examined,” the court “hear[d] argument of each side and [took] the hearing under submission,” and Chapple gave “a copy of the invoice”—an apparent reference to the invoice Simmons gave Chapple in September 2012—to the court. (Capitalization omitted.) No reporter’s transcript from this hearing has been provided, and there is no indication that any evidence other than the parties’ testimony and the invoice was introduced at trial. As no statement of decision was requested, the trial court issued a brief ruling after trial that stated, “Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof as to liability. The court finds that he shall take nothing by way of this action.” Judgment against Chapple was entered in January 2015.