Fidelity Recovery Service v. Walter CA2/5

Filed 11/18/15 Fidelity Recovery Service v. Walter CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

FIDELITY RECOVERY SERVICE, B255476

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PC053593) v.

CHARLES REUBEN WALTER et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Stephen P. Pfahler, Judge. Affirmed. Charles Reuben Walter, in propria persona, for Defendants and Appellants. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Charles Reuben Walter (Walter)1 appeals from a judgment after trial in favor of plaintiff and respondent Fidelity Recovery Services (a fictitious name for F.R.S. Collections, a California Corporation) (Fidelity) on a complaint for money allegedly owing to its assignor—The Yardley Company (Yardley)—for goods furnished to Walter. Walter also appeals from a denial of his motion for new trial. Walter asserts that the trial court erred because Yardley’s obligations were more than furnishing goods and Yardley failed to perform those obligations; the trial court erred in computing damages; the trial court improperly converted the matter to a short cause trial, thereby depriving Walter of a fair trial; and there were other irregularities, including the late presentation of an exhibit file, the failure of the court to provide the required notice concerning a court reporter, and the lack of a court reporter. We affirm the judgment on the ground that there is an inadequate record on appeal.