Opinion
COA21-690
12-20-2022
SCGVIII-LAKEPOINTE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. VIBHA MEN'S CLOTHING, LLC; KALISHWAR DAS, Defendants
Morton &Gettys, LLC, by J. Nathanial Pierce, for plaintiff-appellee. Kalishwar Das, pro se, for defendant-appellant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 May 2022.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 8 September 2021 by Judge Carla N. Archie in Mecklenburg County, No. 19 CVS 16728 Superior Court.
Morton &Gettys, LLC, by J. Nathanial Pierce, for plaintiff-appellee.
Kalishwar Das, pro se, for defendant-appellant.
DIETZ, Judge
¶ 1 Kalishwar Das appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to "correct" the trial transcript by adding portions of the trial testimony that he contends were omitted by the court reporter.
¶ 2 As explained below, we construe this argument as a challenge to the trial court's denial of a request to submit a narrative under Rules 9(c) and 11(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure that would include the purportedly omitted testimony. We reject the argument because Das never submitted a proposed narrative of the omitted portions to the trial court, and Das did not signal to the court that he sought judicial settlement on this question. We therefore affirm the trial court's order.
Facts and Procedural History
¶ 3 Kalishwar Das is the guarantor on a commercial lease agreement between tenant Vibha Men's Clothing and landlord SCGVIII-Lakepointe, LLC (Lakepointe).
¶ 4 Lakepointe commenced eviction proceedings after Vibha defaulted on the lease. Lakepointe later sued Vibha for breach of the lease agreement and Das for breach of the guaranty agreement.
¶ 5 At a bench trial on the breach of lease and guaranty claims, Vibha and Das did not have counsel. The trial court refused Das's request to represent Vibha (a business in which Das was the sole stakeholder) but offered to continue the proceeding so that Vibha could retain counsel. Das declined to continue the proceeding and represented himself at the trial. Vibha, unrepresented by counsel, put on no defense.
¶ 6 After the trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Lakepointe and against Vibha and Das. Das later moved for a new trial, which the court denied. Das then ordered a transcript of the trial proceeding to prepare an appeal.
¶ 7 After receiving the transcript, Das filed a motion in the trial court to make changes to the transcript, arguing that the transcript omitted material that was necessary for his proposed issues on appeal. Das asserted that the addition of these omitted portions of the transcript was necessary to prevent a distortion of the trial proceeding and to expose "courthouse corruption."
¶ 8 After a hearing, the trial court denied Das's request to change the transcript. Das timely filed a notice of appeal from that order.
Analysis I. Motion to correct the trial transcript
¶ 9 Das first argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to address what he contends are omissions in the transcript of the trial proceedings. Das asserts that he asked for the assistance of an interpreter, but this is not reflected in the transcript prepared by the court reporter. Das also asserts that a property manager for Lakepointe read out an incorrect telephone number during trial testimony, but the transcript fails to reflect this portion of the witness's testimony.
¶ 10 Das asserts many grounds on which he contends the trial court erred by denying his request to "correct" the trial transcript-ranging from the trial court's failure to treat this breach of contract proceeding as a criminal case, to failure to inquire into alleged fabrications of official court records in violation of federal law.
¶ 11 In light of Das's pro se status, we construe his arguments liberally to best match the substance of his claim with its underlying legal basis. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). We conclude that Das is arguing, under Rules 9(c) and 11(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, that the trial court erred by refusing to engage in judicial settlement of a dispute concerning a proposed narrative of statements made during the proceedings that were not recorded by the court reporter.
¶ 12 We reject this argument. In our review of the trial record, Das did not follow the required procedure for creation of a narrative and judicial settlement of a dispute about the factual accuracy of that narrative. See N.C. R. App. P. 9(c), 11(c). Indeed, although Das's motion asserted that there were "missing true contents from the transcript" that were "seriously damaging" to his proposed arguments on appeal, he did not cite the Rules of Appellate Procedure or in any other way signal to the trial court that he sought to include a narrative of these missing portions. Das also did not submit any filing with the trial court that could be construed as a proposed narrative of the omitted testimony.
¶ 13 Thus, even construing Das's arguments as charitably as possible, we hold that his arguments are meritless. The trial court did not err by denying his motion because Das did not follow the appropriate procedure and did not preserve this issue for appellate review. We therefore reject his argument.
II. Motion for extension of time
¶ 14 Das next argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for extension of time to serve the proposed record on appeal and his appellate brief. Das did not file a notice of appeal, or petition for a writ of certiorari, with respect to this order. We therefore lack appellate jurisdiction to consider this issue. N.C. R. App. P. 3.
Conclusion
¶ 15 We affirm the trial court's order.
AFFIRMED.
Judges WOOD and GORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).