Pierce v. Belnap CA4/3

Filed 12/21/15 Pierce v. Belnap 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CONNIE L. PIERCE et. al.,

Respondents, G051433

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00712251)

TIMOTHY BELNAP et. al., OPINION

Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Franz E. Miller, Judge. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Brown Wegner McNamara and Stephen M. McNamara for Respondents. Catanzarite Law Corporation, Kenneth J. Catanzarite and Brandon E. Woodward for Appellants. * * *

THE COURT:* Respondents Connie Pierce and her dental corporation (collectively, Pierce) filed a motion to dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine. Essentially, Pierce argues appellant Timothy Belnap’s repeated willful disobedience of orders of the bankruptcy court and the trial court justify dismissal of the appeal. We agree. BACKROUND The underlying case involves the nasty dissolution of a dental partnership between Pierce and Timothy Belnap and his dental corporation (collectively, Belnap). Pierce filed for binding arbitration to dissolve the dental partnership, and for damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims. On Feb. 25, 2014, after a nine-day arbitration, the arbitrator issued an interim order in favor of Pierce, awarding her approximately $500,000, and setting forth numerous specific orders for the winding up of the partnership. These included that neither partner would copy any computer/electronic records until patients were equitably allocated between them, both partners would have equal access to patient appointments, patient records and all partnership records until winding up was done, and the partners would deposit all receipts into the partnership bank account. The partners were also ordered to refrain from “lobbying” patients regarding their choice of dentist. Belnap’s efforts to thwart confirmation of arbitration award On March 12, 2014, the arbitrator issued a final award (Award), incorporating all the terms of the interim order. The same day the Award issued, Belnap filed a lawsuit against Pierce in San Diego County, seeking to “set aside the written agreements that were the subject of [the Arbitrator’s] interim order.” On March 24, 2014, Pierce filed a petition to confirm the Award in Orange County Superior Court. Rather than respond with a petition to vacate the Award, Belnap ___________________________________________________ * Before O’Leary, P.J., Aronson, J., and Thompson, J.