Shiloh v. Value Rental Car CA2/3

Filed 8/2/16 Shiloh v. Value Rental Car CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KENNY J. SHILOH, B259887

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC522253) v.

VALUE RENTAL CAR, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Kenny J. Shiloh, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Daniel O. Iyayi and Daniel O. Iyayi for Defendants and Respondents.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Kenny J. Shiloh appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his case for failure to appear at trial. We affirm because there is no evidence the court abused its discretion. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of Plaintiff’s August 2013 purchase of a vehicle from Defendants Value Rental Car, Inc., Maryam Jailani, and Aziz Jailani, and a related dispute over vehicle payments and smog testing. After Plaintiff refused to pay for the vehicle, Defendants repossessed it and obtained a $2,966.86 small claims court judgment against Plaintiff for damage to the vehicle. In September 2013, Plaintiff sued Defendants in this case, alleging Vehicle Code violations, harassment, Business and Professions Code violations, fraud, identity theft, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, praying for more than $50,000 in damages. The court set trial for October 6, 2014, and continued it to October 9, 2014. On October 9, 2014, the court dismissed the case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(3), noting “[t]here is no appearance of the plaintiff.” DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s rambling opening brief makes numerous assertions unrelated to the dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 581. He accuses the opposing party of verbally harassing him and accuses opposing counsel of unethical conduct that should have been sanctioned by the trial court. He complains the court abused its discretion by “ignoring the first amended complaint” and “allowing [the opposing party] to be their own expert witnesses.” (Capitalization and boldface omitted.) He asserts that the opposing party violated various provisions of the Business and Professions Code, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Commercial Code, and the Vehicle Code. He argues the opposing party failed to present evidence against him and that forms they lodged into evidence were “forged or fraudulent.” He also argues the opposing party “should be barred from receiving anything in regards to their claims against the appellant.” (Capitalization and boldface omitted.) We have no evidence the trial court ever