Elias v. Jensen CA4/3

Filed 7/19/23 Elias v. Jensen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DAVID ELIAS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G061519

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00980796)

SUZANNE JENSEN, et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim R. Hubbard, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to augment record. Denied. David Elias, in pro per. Murtaugh Treglia Stern & Deily, W. Rod Stern, Devin E. Murtaugh, Ashley Chinn and Alexandra Romano, for Defendants and Respondents, Suzanne Jensen and Sharon Sardina. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent, Elizabeth Johnston. * * *

David Elias is before this court on the underlying matter for the second time. Previously, we denied his challenges to the trial court’s orders denying his motion to rescind a settlement agreement and his petition to enforce a no contest clause. (See Elias v. Jensen (March 3, 2022) G060100 & G060101 [nonpub. opns.].) After remittitur, the trial court denied three additional petitions filed by Elias, concluding that the issues raised in those petitions were resolved in the settlement agreement, which had been affirmed. Elias appeals, but as explained below, he has failed to show any prejudicial error. Accordingly, we affirm. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2019, Elias and other parties, including respondents Suzanne Jensen and Sharon Sardina, co-trustees of the J.G. Elias Trust, dated March 18, 2015, entered into a settlement agreement. After receiving cash distributions pursuant to the settlement agreement, Elias sought to rescind the agreement, asserting, among other reasons, fraud by his former counsel and by opposing counsel. Following a trial on his rescission motion, the trial court granted nonsuit to respondents, finding no evidence supported rescission. In light of the validity and enforceability of the settlement agreement, the trial court dismissed as moot other petitions filed by Elias, including a petition to enforce the no contest clause in the trust document. After Elias appealed, this court affirmed the trial court’s orders. (See Elias v. Jensen (March 3, 2022) G060100 & G060101 [nonpub. opns.].) On April 29, 2022, Elias filed a petition for an accounting, and a petition to enforce the no contest clause in the trust document. He also filed a petition for “double damages,” although the pleading is not in the record. On May 2, 2022, the trial court denied all petitions without prejudice. The court explained that because the settlement agreement had been upheld on appeal, “you have no further interest in this matter.” Elias noticed an appeal from the May 2, 2022 order.