Curtis v. Lavian CA2/3

Filed 6/22/21 Curtis v. Lavian 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

GRETA CURTIS et al., B300553

Plaintiffs and Appellants, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC671590 v.

JACOB LAVIAN et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony J. Mohr, Judge. Affirmed. Greta Curtis, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Stephen H. Krumm for Defendant and Respondent Victoria Olshansky.

_____________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Greta Curtis appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Victoria Olshansky after a court trial. Curtis contends the court abused its discretion by setting aside Olshansky’s default, on its own motion, and the judgment did not dispose of all of Curtis’s claims against Olshansky. Because Curtis has not provided an adequate record to review her contentions, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

In August 2017, Curtis and Eric Radley (collectively, plaintiffs) sued Olshansky and three other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and negligence.1 According to the purchase agreement attached to the complaint, Radley agreed to buy commercial property owned by Olshansky for $950,000. Although Curtis is not a party to the purchase agreement, she purports to be Radley’s assignee and a co-buyer of the property. In essence, Curtis alleges that Olshansky and the other defendants breached the purchase agreement by failing to disclose pertinent information about the property and by failing to procure a property information report. On September 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed an application for entry of default against Olshansky. On October 3, 2017, the clerk rejected the request because both plaintiffs had not signed the application and had not served Olshansky with the first amended complaint.