Clapham v. Barker CA2/1

Filed 10/30/20 Clapham v. Barker CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

SHARON CLAPHAM, B300548

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC672526) v.

ANN BARKER,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Sharon J. Clapham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. FSG Lawyers and Richard W. Millar, Jr., for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff and appellant Sharon Clapham appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Ann Barker. Clapham contends the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing witnesses, including Clapham, to testify at the hearing on Barker’s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, she contends the trial court erred by failing to continue the summary judgment hearing to allow Clapham “ ‘to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to the motion.’ ” Clapham failed to designate the reporter’s transcript of the hearings on the summary judgment motion. She also failed to designate any of the relevant documents related to that motion, including the motion itself, the opposition, the reply, separate statement of undisputed material facts, or any of the declaration either in support of, or in opposition to, the motion. We affirm on the basis that the record is inadequate to establish reversible error.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Because the alleged facts giving rise to the action are not relevant to the disposition of this appeal, we discuss them only briefly. Clapham is the widow of Robert Clapham, an accountant and the former proprietor of Robert G. Clapham Accountancy Corporation (RGCAC). Following Robert Clapham’s death in 2013, Clapham attempted to collect on debts owed to RGCAC, including unpaid billings issued to Barker. Clapham also had numerous discussions with one of RGCAC’s employees, Peter Sinambal, about a potential sale of the accountancy business to Sinambal. According to Clapham, Sinambal engaged in multiple acts of deceit and wrongdoing during the negotiations, and the parties never reached an agreement.