Jiang v. Liu CA2/8

Filed 6/20/13 Jiang v. Liu CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

JACK F. JIANG, B244212

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC063603) v.

QIAN LIU,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert A. Dukes. Affirmed.

Jack F. Jiang, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Jie Ci Ding and Jie Ci Ding for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiff Jack F. Jiang appeals from the judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained defendant Qian Liu’s demurrer to his complaint, without leave to amend. Because his appellate briefs and appendices suffer various fundamental defects, and fail to adequately address the bases of the claimed errors, plaintiff has not satisfied his burden on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We are able to glean the following facts from plaintiff’s briefs and appellate appendices: On April 17, 2012, plaintiff sued defendant (his ex-wife), asserting causes of action for constructive fraud, deceit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The complaint alleged defendant made misrepresentations during the parties’ earlier divorce proceeding. Specifically, plaintiff alleged defendant fabricated an appraisal report for real estate in China, and accordingly “misled the court.” This, he alleged, resulted in an inequitable division of marital assets. Defendant demurred, contending the judgment in the divorce is res judicata, barring plaintiff’s claims, and that any claim of fraud should have been addressed in the divorce proceeding or in an appeal from that judgment. In opposition, plaintiff contended res judicata was inapplicable. In reply, defendant contended the fraud issue had been raised in the divorce proceeding, and that plaintiff submitted his own evidence of valuation, and therefore, plaintiff was barred from relitigating the division of marital assets. A transcript from the trial in the divorce proceeding, submitted in support of the demurrer, shows plaintiff argued defendant’s appraisal was “wrong” and that the appraisers were “liar[s].” The trial court’s tentative ruling on the demurrer concluded “this action is barred by collateral estoppel. The issue presented in the Complaint (whether the Appraisal Consulting Report was fabricated) was already litigated and necessarily decided in the prior divorce proceedings. The court transcript demonstrates that Plaintiff argued in the trial that Defendant’s ‘appraisal is wrong,’. . . ; Plaintiff submitted his own appraisal of the subject property . . . ; and . . . the court considered [the] difference in the value of the