Girgis v. Falese CA2/3

Filed 9/17/20 Girgis v. Falese CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DAVID PETER GIRGIS et al., B298640

Cross-complainants and (Los Angeles County Respondents, Super. Ct. No. BC682176)

v.

PHILIP FALESE,

Cross-defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. Philip Falese, in pro per., for Cross-defendant and Appellant. Goode Hemme and Jerry D. Hemme for Cross-complainants and Respondents. ——————————

Philip Falese appeals from a judgment that arose out of his purported representation of David Peter Girgis and Moses Joseph Girgis (the Girgises). Falese contends the trial court erroneously excluded a document related to a retainer agreement he had with the Girgises. Despite this being his sole contention, Falese has not provided us with the document nor any record of the trial court’s ruling regarding its inadmissibility. The record is therefore inadequate, and we affirm the judgment on that basis. BACKGROUND The following facts are from the trial court’s judgment after bench trial. Kate Aurell sued the Girgises over a botched real estate transaction.1 As part of the transaction, the Girgises deposited $20,000 with a third party. However, when the deal fell through, the deposit was not returned. The Girgises filed a cross- complaint against attorney Falese and their real estate agent, Steve Awadalla, alleging that Falese deposited the $20,000 into his client trust account, but failed to return it to the Girgises. At trial, Falese claimed that he and the Girgises entered into a written retainer agreement whereby he would represent them in obtaining the return of the $20,000 deposit. Falese never met with nor had any personal contact with the Girgises. Their communications were through an unidentified agent, who apparently was Awadalla.2 Falese was not present when any