Vinson v. Randle CA2/3

Filed 10/15/15 Vinson v. Randle CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LAURA VINSON, B254994

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC479286) v.

JEREMIAH RANDLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard E. Rico, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeremiah Randle, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION Defendant Jeremiah Randle appeals the trial court’s entry of default judgment against him, asserting Plaintiff Laura Vinson failed to properly verify the first amended complaint. In this case, Randle moved to strike in response to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. The court denied Randle’s motion to strike due to improper service. Randle never answered the first amended complaint within the time allotted by the court, defaulted, and then failed to move to set aside the default prior to this appeal. We affirm because Randle has not proven that the verification in the first amended complaint was substantively deficient, has improperly attacked the merits of the case following default, and has waived his arguments on appeal by failing to provide citation to the record, citation to relevant authority, and reasoned argument. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In February 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Randle and others requesting equitable relief, an injunction, and damages. Plaintiff alleged that she was involved in a family law case with Randle, and that she owned a community property interest in a company that held title to several real properties. Plaintiff asserted that Randle violated the family law court’s order by selling the several real properties held by the company without her authorization. She alleged causes of action for fraudulent transfer, civil conspiracy, conversion, and fraud. In response, Randle moved to strike the complaint because it was not verified. Plaintiff responded by amending her complaint and Plaintiff’s counsel verified the first amended complaint. Randle moved to strike again, arguing that the verification in first amended complaint failed to comport with statutory requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure1 section 446. In August 2012, the court denied the motion because Randle did not properly serve the motion on Plaintiff, and ordered Randle to answer the complaint in 10 days. Randle never answered the complaint. Rather, in September 2012, Randle