Bolgar v. Harris Properties CA2/1

Filed 2/26/13 Bolgar v. Harris Properties CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

PETER BOLGAR, B240376

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC464010) v.

HARRIS PROPERTIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed. ______

Peter Bolgar, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gaglione, Dolan & Kaplan and Jack M. LaPedis for Defendants and Respondents Harris Properties, Inc., Glen-Donald Condominiums, Inc., Diane Lortie-Dudasik and Martin Simard. Hatton, Petrie & Stackler, Arthur R. Petrie II, and John A. McMahon for Defendant and Respondent Hatton, Petrie & Stackler. ______

On June 21, 2011, Peter Bolgar filed suit in propria persona against Harris Properties, Inc., “Glen Donald Co. Op. Building, Inc.,” “Diana L. Dodasic,” “Martin Simath,” and the law firm of Hatton, Petrie & Stackler APC (hereafter “Hatton”).1 On August 22, 2011, Bolgar filed a motion for entry of judgment by default against all defendants. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript does not contain an order ruling on the motion. The trial court’s docket reflects that as of May 24, 2012, no default has ever been entered for any party. On November 15, 2011, Bolgar filed a motion “to implement the rule and law for default against defendants,” apparently seeking entry of default or default judgment. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript does not contain an order ruling on the motion. On December 27, 2011, Bolgar filed a motion to vacate a court order that was purportedly entered on December 21, 2011. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript contains neither an order ruling on the motion nor the putative underlying order that he was seeking to vacate. On April 4, 2012, the trial court entered a minute order denying Bolgar’s motion to vacate an order that was purportedly entered on March 7, 2012. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript contains neither his motion nor the putative underlying order that he was seeking to vacate. On April 4, 2012, Bolgar filed a notice of appeal from the “default judgment” entered on an unspecified date and apparently from some “other” order entered on an unspecified date, apparently relating in some manner to service of process. The trial court’s docket reflects that on September 26, 2011, some defendant filed a motion to quash. Pursuant to Bolgar’s designation of the record on appeal, the clerk’s transcript contains neither the motion nor any order ruling on it.