Antonyan v. Lezak CA5

Filed 11/20/15 Antonyan v. Lezak CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

VARDAN ANTONYAN, F070527 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV279862) v.

JEFFREY LEZAK et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge. Vardan Antonyan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jeffrey Lezak, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent. Robert J. Mills, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

In this action for breach of contract, fraud and other claims relating to an agreement to sell real property, plaintiff Vardan Antonyan (plaintiff) appeals from (1) the summary judgment in favor of defendants Robert J. Mills and Crayon Sky Investment Group Trust (collectively Mills) and (2) the judgment following court trial in favor of defendant Jeffrey Lezak, individually and as trustee for the Jeffrey Lezak Solo 401(k) Trust (collectively Lezak). Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden as appellant to demonstrate, by citation to an adequate record and by presentation of sufficient legal authority and cogent discussion, that the trial court committed prejudicial reversible error. Accordingly, plaintiff’s appeal fails and the separate judgments of the trial court entered in favor of defendants Mills and Lezak are hereby affirmed.1 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Although the record on appeal is sketchy at best, it appears that plaintiff entered into a contract with Mills, under the terms of which Mills was to sell and plaintiff was to purchase certain real property on Warren Avenue in Bakersfield, California (the real property). The contract specified certain performance deadlines and other contingencies, including that plaintiff had to provide proof of funds and updated loan approval to Mills by March 13, 2013. Mills asserted that plaintiff failed to comply with the deadline and cancelled the escrow. Thereafter, Mills sold the property to Lezak, who had made a backup offer to purchase the real property. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on July 22, 2013. This court has not been provided with a copy of the complaint or other pleadings in the case. According to plaintiff, the complaint alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud and conspiracy against defendants Mills and Lezak.