Lazo v. Keller CA4/3

Filed 7/29/21 Lazo v. Keller CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARC Y. LAZO et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G058765

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00811823 consol. with 30-2018-00994566) RICHARD KELLER, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenda Sanders, Judge. Dismissed. Motion to Dismiss. Granted. Motion for Sanctions. Denied. Kent Salveson; Freedom Law Group and Andrew Phan for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Schwartzberg│Luther, Sagi Schwartzberg; Swarovski Law and Evgeny Swarovski for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Marc Y. Lazo and H&L Holdings Group, LLC (plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court’s order requiring each of them to separately pay defendant Richard Keller $4,900 in discovery sanctions. The trial court’s sanctions order was not appealable because neither sanctions award was in an amount that exceeded $5,000 per party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(12).) We therefore dismiss the instant appeal. Although we dismiss plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we deny Keller’s motion for sanctions against plaintiffs because our record does not show plaintiffs pursued this appeal for an improper motive.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY As summarized in one of the separate statements submitted in connection 1 with the parties’ discovery dispute, this lawsuit “arises out of a promissory note entered into by Defendant Keller and Plaintiff Lazo in September 2012 and obligations rising therefrom, and from an oral agreement between Plaintiffs Lazo and [Jacques] Hattouni and Defendant Keller in December of 2012 with respect to a real estate investment” in real property located in Huntington Beach and the proceeds of a home equity line of credit taken against that property. Lazo, Hattouni, and H&L Holdings Group, LLC, among others, filed a lawsuit against Keller arising out of Keller’s “purported lack of authority to conduct business without Mr. Lazo’s express consent or that Keller used the $250,000 from the Home Equity Line of Credit for such business.”