Garg v. Toll Brothers CA4/3

Filed 3/2/22 Garg v. Toll Brothers 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

OM P. GARG,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G060521

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01081047)

TOLL BROTHERS, INC., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig L. Griffin, Judge. Affirmed. Om P. Garg, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kibler Fowler & Cave, Matthew J. Cave and Kevin C. Kroll for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Om Garg, representing himself, appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted the summary judgment motion of respondent Toll Brothers, Inc. Garg claimed that Toll Brothers owed him $70,000 as a commission on a house bought by his daughter in a Toll Brothers development. The agreement to pay a commission was, however, contingent on Garg’s possession of a valid real estate license at the time of execution. It is undisputed that Garg’s real estate license had expired and that he did not renew it until a few months later. The trial court granted Toll Brothers’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that Garg’s failure to have a valid license automatically terminated the agreement. Garg’s arguments that Toll Brothers waived the requirement or that it subsequently ratified the agreement were unavailing. The record Garg has placed before us consists of the first amended complaint, the declaration he filed in opposition to Toll Brother’s motion for summary judgment (without exhibits), and some miscellaneous correspondence. This record is wholly inadequate for our review and does not begin to comply with the requirements for an appellant’s appendix set out in the California Rules of Court. Toll Brothers has filled in a few gaps by means of a respondent’s appendix, so we have some idea of what went on in the trial court during the summary judgment process. Toll Brothers’ information does not, however, change the outcome. The appellant’s failure to provide a reviewable record requires us to affirm the judgment because error cannot be presumed and must be shown. This record does not show error. Garg’s pervasive violations of the California Rules of Court pertaining to the record on appeal and to the appellant’s brief also militate in favor of affirmance.