Opinion
G055166
06-29-2018
MOHAMMAD ASIF SATTAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FARHAD HYDER, Defendant and Appellant.
Law Office of John V. Gaule and John V. Gaule for Appellant. Yates Litigation and John Yates for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00819361) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda S. Marks, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of John V. Gaule and John V. Gaule for Appellant. Yates Litigation and John Yates for Respondent.
* * *
Farhad Hyder appeals from a monetary judgment rendered against him in favor of Mohammad Asif Sattar. Hyder asserts the claims filed in the trial court were previously litigated in arbitration, or released by a prior settlement agreement, and were therefore barred from review at trial. The record on appeal, however, lacks a reporter's transcript, is devoid of information accurately summarizing the evidence presented at trial, and contains no information regarding the trial court's reasoning for its decision. On this record, we find no error.
FACTS
Because of the limited record on appeal, the facts of this case are necessarily abbreviated. --------
Sattar and Hyder were co-owners of Sirius, LLC (Sirius), a convenience store and gasoline station in Arcadia. At some point, they had a dispute and Sattar filed a lawsuit against Hyder in 2015. Sattar sought recovery for reimbursement under Civil Code §§ 2847 and 2848; breach of contract; fraudulent concealment; breach of fiduciary duty; conversion; embezzlement; and declaratory relief. The complaint alleged Sirius's assets were sold on January 7, 2014. It stated at the time of the sale, Sirius's line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank was paid off. Sattar alleged that following sale of the company's assets, Hyder used the corporate line of credit for his personal benefit in the collective amount of $80,500. Sattar also claimed, among other allegations not pertinent to this appeal, that Hyder was liable for $15,000 in back taxes owed by Sirius.
A trial was held on January 17, 2017. The court entered judgment against Hyder on April 24, 2017, awarding Sattar $124,989.41, plus statutory costs.
DISCUSSION
Hyder contends we must reverse the judgment because the parties litigated the underlying claims in arbitration. We find no error and affirm.
A judgment is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) "It is the duty of an appellant to provide an adequate record to the court establishing error. Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant." (Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 660.) Exhibits are deemed part of the clerk's transcript, but must be designated by a party by number and letter to be included in the transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.122(a)(3).) We need not consider an exhibit that has not been properly transmitted to this court. (Dominguez v. American Suzuki Motor Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 53, 55, fn. 2.)
"'Res judicata' describes the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them." (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.) We are cognizant that "[t]he application of the doctrine of res judicata is a question of law we review de novo." (State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 258, 268, fn. 4.)
The record on appeal here is inadequate and limits our review. No reporter's transcript was provided. The clerk's transcript includes only a register of actions, Sattar's complaint, Hyder's answer, the judgment, and the notice of appeal. Hyder's opening brief purports to attach two exhibits: "Exhibit A," an arbitration award; and "Exhibit B," a portion of what appears to be a settlement agreement. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.122(a)(3), exhibits are considered part of the record, but must be designated by a party for inclusion in the clerk's transcript. Hyder's designation of the record did not properly request inclusion of any exhibits. Hyder contends he did not designate the exhibits because the trial court returned all exhibits to the parties following trial. He fails to demonstrate why he was unable, as mandated by the Rules of Court, to augment the record with the exhibits. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
Even assuming the exhibits were properly transmitted to the court, that does not aid our review. The exhibits were not marked in any manner to demonstrate they were received into evidence in their current form. Both documents appear to be missing pages containing crucial information, such as dates, signatures, and other indicia for us to determine the precise claims that were litigated.
Hyder argues res judicata should have barred Sattar's claim for $80,500 related to Hyder's alleged improper use of a company credit card, as well as for $15,000 in back taxes. Hyder is potentially correct that the doctrine of res judicata would bar relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties. (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.) We cannot apply the doctrine in this case, however, because the record is unclear as to which claims the parties litigated at trial and whether those were the same issues litigated at arbitration. There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate Sattar's claims at trial were presented to the arbitrator, or otherwise litigated and resolved. We cannot presume error on this record.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Sattar is awarded his costs on appeal.
GOETHALS, J. WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. ARONSON, J.