Ahmadi v. Cebrail Altindag CA4/3

Filed 11/29/22 Ahmadi v. Cebrail Altindag 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BASHIR AHMADI,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060474

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01048863)

CEBRAIL ALTINDAG, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Melissa R. McCormick, Judge. Affirmed. Cebrail Altindag, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Worthington Law and Brian P. Worthington for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After a one-day court trial, the trial court ruled in favor of Bashir Ahmadi in his breach of contract action against his former business partners Cebrail Altindag and 1 Erol Kozoglu. In this appeal, Altindag, a self-represented litigant, raises the following two issues: (1) the court erred by refusing to admit several trial exhibits; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. Unfortunately, Altindag failed to provide this court with an adequate record to review these issues. We affirm the judgment. FACTS In July 2016, Ahmadi, Kozoglu, and Altindag became partners in an ice cream production business. Four months later, the partnership disbanded. On February 4, 2019, Ahmadi filed a complaint against Altindag and Kozoglu. He alleged causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In his complaint, Ahmadi asserted Kozoglu and Altindag induced him to invest a total of $171,600 in the partnership. Ahmadi initially invested $121,600. He later contributed an additional $50,000, which represented a loan to Altindag to give him a stake in the partnership. Ahmadi alleged that when the partnership disbanded, Kozoglu and Altindag initially agreed to refund to Ahmadi his total investment through periodic payments. They executed an agreement setting forth a specific repayment schedule. After a few payments, Altindag and Kozoglu breached the repayment agreement. In the complaint, Ahmadi sought $121,000 from Kozoglu and $50,000 from Altindag. According to the trial court’s register of actions for this case, Altindag filed an answer and a cross-complaint. Neither document was included in our record. Indeed, other than the complaint and two exhibit lists, the only trial-related documents included in our record is the court’s minute order describing what transpired during the one-day