Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C07-01429
SIMONS, J.
Qui tam plaintiff Kenneth Barker (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant Round Hill Country Club (respondent). Appellant contends the court erred in dismissing his complaint after he informed the court he was unable to proceed on the date set for trial. We affirm.
“Qui tam is short for the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, which means ‘who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.’ ” (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens (2000) 529 U.S. 765, 768, fn. 1; see also Gov. Code, § 12652, subd. (c)(1).)
BACKGROUND
In July 2007, appellant filed a lawsuit against respondent under the California False Claims Act (Gov. Code, §§ 12650 et seq.), seeking to recover funds on behalf of the State of California. The lawsuit alleges that respondent unlawfully operated unlicensed and uninsured golf carts on public roads. The State of California declined to intervene, leaving appellant to proceed with the case as a qui tam plaintiff.
In January 2008, appellant served a request for production of documents on respondent. Respondent produced some documents in February 2008. Following a meet and confer session, appellant filed a motion to compel the production of additional documents in April 2008. In June 2008, the trial court directed the parties to agree to the appointment of a discovery referee, appointed William K. Houston as discovery referee, and ordered that “[a]ll pending and future discovery disputes will be heard and finally decided by the discovery referee.”
In early November 2008, the discovery referee filed his recommendations regarding appellant’s request for production of documents and the court issued an order adopting the recommendations. Respondent produced some additional documents. On December 5, 2008, appellant filed another motion to compel production of documents, setting the hearing on the motion for January 22, 2009, 10 days after the scheduled commencement of trial.
On January 12, 2009, the first day of trial, the trial court denied a request from appellant to continue the trial date. The court bifurcated the trial into liability and damages phases to address appellant’s alleged need for documents on damages. The trial commenced with an opening statement by appellant. Following the opening statement, respondent moved for judgment on the ground that appellant could not establish liability with lay testimony, and he had not disclosed any expert witnesses.
On January 13, 2009, the trial court issued a minute order setting a hearing for February 19 and directing the parties to submit briefs regarding respondent’s motion for judgment. The court also vacated the January 22 discovery hearing and directed appellant to “include in his response any issues related to discovery.” On January 15, appellant filed a document entitled “Notice of Plaintiffs’ Intent to Appeal to the Court of Appeal[].” Appellant alleged that his constitutional rights had been violated by the trial court and stated: “[P]laintiff[, ] at this time, is not prepared [to] go forward with this action in [s]uperior [c]ourt. Instead, plaintiff shall now file an [a]ppeal with the Court of Appeal[] for relief from [the trial court’s] violations of the [C]onstitution and law.” Appellant also withdrew his opening statement and stated that he would not “follow, or respond to, the Minute Order of the court dated January 13, 2009.” Appellant did not request any relief in regard to his discovery requests. On February 17, respondent filed a brief requesting that the court dismiss the action on the ground that appellant had abandoned his case.
At the hearing on February 19, 2009, the trial court denied respondent’s motion for judgment. Thereafter, the court denied appellant’s renewed request for a continuance. Appellant then announced he could not proceed, stating “I believe that the court’s rulings and refusal to make the defendants comply with this discovery law and the court is not following its own discovery laws and its own discovery orders, the whole case has been turned on its head.” The court granted respondent’s request for dismissal of the complaint. In May 2009, the court entered judgment in favor of respondent. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of respondent, because the court failed to enforce its discovery orders. However, as explained above, in its January 13, 2009 minute order, the court invited appellant to address the discovery issue in his brief in advance of the February 19 hearing. Instead of addressing the discovery issue, appellant stated in his January 15 “Notice of Plaintiff[‘s] Intent to Appeal to the Court of Appeal[]” that he was “not prepared [to] go forward with this action in [s]uperior [c]ourt” and would not “follow, or respond to, ” the court’s minute order. Appellant cannot show that the trial court failed to enforce its discovery orders where he did not take advantage of the opportunities presented to him to have his concerns addressed. Moreover, appellant has not shown how any of the missing discovery prevented him from proceeding with the case, particularly where the trial court bifurcated the issues of liability and damages.
Appellant presents a number of additional contentions that require little analysis. He fails to present reasoned argument with citations to authority that the trial court erred in appointing a discovery referee and bifurcating the trial (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785 (Badie); neither does he provide any citations to the record showing that he objected to either of those orders (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406-407). He fails to present reasoned argument with citations to authority that the trial court erred in denying his requests for continuances. (Badie, at pp. 784-785.) Finally, appellant fails to present reasoned argument with citations to authority that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of respondent after appellant stated he could not proceed with the trial on February 19, 2009. (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur. JONES, P.J., NEEDHAM, J.