Major Market Radio v. Shah CA4/2 (2022) · DecisionDepot
Major Market Radio v. Shah CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Aug 26, 2022 No. E076519Unpublished
Filed 8/26/22 Major Market Radio v. Shah CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
MAJOR MARKET RADIO, LLC,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E076519
v. (Super. Ct. No. PSC1706817)
SURESH C. SHAH, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David M. Chapman,
Judge. Affirmed.
United Law Center and John S. Sargetis, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Major Market Radio, LLC appeals from the trial court’s order denying its request
for a default judgment, an award of damages, and attorney’s fees, and the court’s order
dismissing its case for failure to prosecute. We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2017, Major filed and served a complaint against Suresh C. Shah
presumes trial court’s judgment is correct with “all intendments and presumptions in
favor of its correctness”].) Instead, the trial court permissibly found that Stolz’s
declaration insufficiently showed that Major suffered about $109,000 in damages because
7
of Shah’s actions. We presume the trial court applied the correct standard in reaching
this decision, not the incorrect higher burden of proof that the Johnson trial court
explicitly applied.
Major argues that because the trial court erred by denying its request for damages,
the court necessarily erred by later dismissing its complaint. Major provides no other
argument on the court’s dismissal. Because we conclude the trial court had the discretion
not to award Major damages on this record, Major has failed to show that the trial court
erroneously dismissed its complaint for failure to prosecute. (Bianco v. California
Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125 [appellant must show the trial court
prejudicially erred].)
Finally, we note that it is unclear whether Major challenges the trial court’s order
denying its request for attorney’s fees. Although Major notes that the trial court denied
the request because it was “excessive,” Major provides no argument on the issue in its
opening brief. Major thus forfeited any challenge to the trial court’s refusal to award
attorney’s fees. (Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 296,
fn. 7 [“Issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed waived or
abandoned”]; see also Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785
[appellant forfeits argument made without analysis or authority].) We therefore affirm
the trial court’s order denying Major’s request for attorney’s fees. (Bianco v. California
Highway Patrol, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1125 [appellant must show the trial court
prejudicially erred].)
8
IV.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s orders denying Major’s request for a default judgment, damages,
and attorney’s fees and dismissing the complaint are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a default judgment and subsequent dismissal of the complaint, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion to reject insufficient evidence of damages and that the plaintiff failed to diligently prosecute the action.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying the plaintiff's request for a default judgment based on insufficient evidence of damages?
Did the trial court err in dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute after repeatedly rejecting the plaintiff's default judgment applications?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“When entering judgment against a defaulting defendant, a trial court acts as a ‘gatekeeper,’ not a rubber stamp.”