Hasso v. Dawood CA4/3

Filed 10/29/15 Hasso v. Dawood 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DANIEL HASSO,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049588

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00124141)

JAMAL DAWOOD et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael Brenner, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. De Novo Law Firm and Benjamin Yrungaray for Defendants and Appellants. Law Office of Michael Creamer for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendants and appellants Jamal Dawood and Capital Finance, Inc., appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Daniel Hasso after a jury found them liable under theories of fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty. After a nine day trial, the jury returned a general verdict awarding compensatory damages of $70,000 and punitive damages of $230,000 against each defendant. In a bifurcated bench trial on equitable issues, the court found in plaintiff’s favor on the equitable defenses based on the statute of limitations, res judicata, collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, and unclean hands. Defendants appeal from the judgment, contending plaintiff’s causes of action were barred by applicable statutes of limitation, by collateral estoppel, and that the court committed prejudicial evidentiary error. We conclude defendants waived each claim due to inadequate briefing. An appellant’s brief must “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)), and “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)). “[A]ppellate counsel should be vigilant in providing us with effective assistance in ferreting out all of the operative facts that affect the resolution of issues tendered on appeal. They can accomplish this only by summarizing all of the operative facts, not just those favorable to their clients [citation], and by providing exact record page citations for each fact cited by counsel.” (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 113-114.) “We are a busy court which ‘cannot be expected to search through a voluminous record to discover evidence on a point raised by [a party] when his brief makes no reference to the pages where the evidence on the point can be found in the record.’” (Id. at p. 113.) “[A]ny point raised that lacks citation may, in this court’s discretion, be deemed waived.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) Defendants’ opening brief fails to provide any meaningful summary of the significant facts. The following are the only facts we glean: this case involves claims for