Daniels v. Dobalian CA2/3

Filed 10/16/20 Daniels v. Dobalian CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MICHAEL DANIELS, B301001

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC706074) v.

CYNTHIA L. MILLER DOBALIAN,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory Keosian, Judge. Affirmed. Michael Daniels, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hart King, William R. Hart, Rhonda H. Mehlman and Kristen L. Erney for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Michael Daniels (Daniels) appeals a judgment of dismissal following the grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings on his first amended complaint (FAC) against defendant and respondent Cynthia L. Miller Dobalian (Dobalian). Daniels has failed to provide an adequate record for appellate review, and has failed in his brief to meet his burden to affirmatively show prejudicial error. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Daniels was a defendant in a criminal proceeding brought against him for driving under the influence (People v. Daniels, L.A. Super. Ct. No. BA301458.) Dr. Gerald W. Miller (Dr. Miller) was an expert for the prosecution in that case. Daniels claims he suffers a loss of liberty due to a false representation made by Dr. Miller, and Daniels sued Dobalian “as the Legal Heir of [Dr. Miller’s] Estate.” In response to the operative FAC, Dobalian filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In an order filed July 25, 2019, the trial court granted Dobalian’s motion, stating in relevant part: “Dobalian moves for judgment against the FAC on the grounds that (1) the negligence claim is time-barred, (2) the complaint seeks damages for a witness’s testimony in a criminal proceeding and as such impermissibly targets privileged conduct, and (3) a witness testifying in a criminal trial against a criminal defendant owes no duty of care to the criminal defendant.