Carter v. Francisco CA4/3

Filed 4/17/13 Carter v. Francisco 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JOHN R. CARTER et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G047234

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00563015)

RENIERO FRANCISCO et al., OPINION

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kirk Nakamura, Judge. Affirmed. Alavi & Broyles, Samuel G. Broyles, Jr., and Max Alavi, for Defendants and Appellants Reniero Franciso, Cynthia Francisco, and Bendisyon, Inc. Law Offices of Frank N. Masino, Frank N. Masino, for Defendants and Appellants Abdul Sultan Walji, Arista LLC, and Calpension, Inc. Law Offices of Thomas E. Francis and Thomas E. Francis for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

* * *

This is an appeal from an order denying arbitration. The appellants are defendants Abdul Sultan Walji, individually and as trustee of the Stone Lamm Trust, Arista LLC, Calpension, Inc., Reniero Francisco, Cynthia Francisco and Bendisyon, Inc. Other defendants, who did not join in the appeal, are LPL Financial Corporation, Milagros Investments, LLC, and Investment Resource Partners, Inc. The respondents are plaintiffs John R. Carter and Carmen Carter. We affirm the court’s denial of the motions to compel arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c).

STATE OF THE RECORD

At the outset, we take note of problems with the record. We have a clerk’s transcript (two volumes) and a supplemental clerk’s transcript (three volumes). Although they contain mostly the same documents, different page numbers pertain to different documents. Furthermore, the page numbering on both sets of transcripts is confusing to say the least. The pages of each transcript initially contain a printed page number. In the clerk’s transcript, starting with printed page number 101, the printed numbers are blocked out and replaced with a different handwritten number through printed page number 276, creating duplicate page numbers within the same transcript. In the supplemental clerk’s transcript the substitute paging starts on printed page number 105, and continues through printed page number 283. On some of these pages we can decipher the printed number; on many more, we cannot. When page numbers are given in the briefs, it is unclear which of these page numbers are intended. The subject of this appeal, the motion to compel arbitration, together with its supporting documents covers over 200 pages; we did not find a table of contents. Although we attempted to make sense of the record, it is not our responsibility to plow through several hundred pages of material to try and find support for appellants’ contentions. A fundamental principle of appellate law is the judgment or order of the