Guttridge v. Aurora Capital CA3

Filed 12/5/22 Guttridge v. Aurora Capital CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

MICHAEL J. GUTTRIDGE, C086358

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Super. Ct. Nos. 34-2012- Respondent, 00129930-CU-MC-GDS & 34201300156423) v.

AURORA CAPITAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants;

RYAN VOORHEES,

Cross-defendant and Respondent.

In their appeal from the judgment entered in consolidated cases, appellants Aurora Capital, LLC, and Chun Mei Dodge request that we vacate the judgment pursuant to

1

Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8).1 They assert this relief is appropriate following the parties’ execution of a postjudgment stipulation for settlement. However, as respondents Michael J. Guttridge and Ryan Voorhees emphasize, that stipulation for settlement, the very basis on which appellants seek to vacate the judgment, is not part of the record on appeal, and Guttridge and Voorhees do not agree the judgment should be vacated.2 Moreover, appellants have failed to make any showing of entitlement to the relief they seek. Their factual assertions are unsupported by citation to the record or by facts in the record. The extent of their citation to legal authority in their opening brief is a single citation to section 128, subdivision (a)(8). In short, they assert their entitlement to relief rather than establishing it. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We need not set forth the underlying background of this matter to resolve this appeal. Nor could we, for that matter, given the sparse record appellants have provided in their appendix. That appendix consists solely of an amended judgment filed on June 25, 2018, and the notice of appeal. For purposes of resolving this appeal, it is sufficient to state that this matter consists of two cases consolidated in the trial court. Very generally, one case involved the dissolution of Aurora Capital LLC and the validity of a land purchase agreement between Aurora Capital LLC and Voorhees. The other case involved Dodge’s claims asserted against Guttridge individually and as manager of Aurora Capital LLC seeking damages and other relief. In the amended judgment, the trial court, among other things, ordered Aurora Capital LLC dissolved with its funds, after satisfaction of certain obligations, distributed to Guttridge, and ordered that Dodge