Filed 4/28/21 Turner v. Gordy CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RENITA TURNER,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL T. GORDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B296756

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC641502)

 ORDER MODIFYING

 OPINION

 NO CHANGE IN

 JUDGMENT

THE COURT:*

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on 

April 21, 2021, be modified as follows:

On page 9, after the Disposition, replace the name of 

Presiding Justice Lui with the name of Acting Presiding Justice 

Ashmann-Gerst, so that the signature lines appear as follows:
2

________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

________________________, Acting P. J.

ASHMANN-GERST

________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT

There is no change in judgment.

*

 ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.
Filed 4/21/21 Turner v. Gordy CA2/2 (unmodified opinion)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

RENITA TURNER,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL T. GORDY,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B296756

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC641502)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge. Affirmed.

Paul T. Gordy, in pro. per.; Chandler Law Firm and 

Paul W. Chandler for Defendant and Appellant.

Renita Turner, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *
2

Defendant and appellant Paul T. Gordy (defendant) 

appeals from the judgment awarding plaintiff and respondent 

Renita Turner (plaintiff) $226,784 in compensatory damages and 

$170,000 in punitive damages following a court trial in this 

action for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims. We affirm 

the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action against defendant and Alfonso 

Bustamante (Bustamante)1 in November 2016. In her operative 

first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant and 

Bustamante induced her to enter into a series of fraudulent 

investment transactions in which she gave defendant a total of 

$172,482 in exchange for a promise that she would receive a 20 

percent rate of return on her investment. Defendant gave 

plaintiff a series of postdated checks as payment for the promised 

return on her investment. In October 2014, the postdated checks 

defendant provided failed to clear because of insufficient funds.

Defendant assured plaintiff that the problem was a banking issue 

and that her initial investment would be returned.

Plaintiff’s initial investment remained unreimbursed in 

September 2015, and she demanded a meeting with defendant. 

During the meeting, defendant promised to return to plaintiff 

$56,784 in fees she had paid him for the investment transactions. 

Plaintiff met again with defendant in July 2016, and defendant 

promised to pay plaintiff at least $20,000 within two weeks and 

assured her he would repay her in full.

1 Bustamante is not a party to this appeal.
3

Plaintiff’s funds were never returned. She sued defendant 

and Bustamante for breach of oral contract, promissory fraud, 

intentional fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust 

enrichment, and constructive trust.

Defendant filed his answer to the first amended complaint 

on October 5, 2017. He filed a case management statement on 

November 17, 2017 indicating he was self-represented and 

requesting a nonjury trial.

Defendant, plaintiff, and Bustamante were present at the 

December 5, 2017 case management conference hearing at which 

the trial court set a final status conference for October 11, 2018, 

and a trial date of October 22, 2018. The trial was bifurcated into 

liability and punitive damages phases. All parties were selfrepresented through the liability phase of the trial.

Defendant and Bustamante failed to appear at the 

October 11, 2018 final status conference. The trial court set an 

October 22, 2018 order to show cause re sanctions against 

defendants for their failure to appear. The trial court’s October 

11, 2018 minute order states that because no jury deposit fee was 

posted, the matter would be tried as a court trial.

Defendant and Bustamante appeared on October 22, 2018, 

and the trial court discharged the order to show cause and 

vacated its sanctions order. The matter was then called for trial. 

Plaintiff, defendant, and Bustamante testified, and the trial court 

admitted plaintiff’s documentary evidence, including photocopies 

of checks paid to defendant or his corporation and e-mail 

exchanges between plaintiff and defendant. After hearing 

argument from the parties, the trial court took the matter under 

submission. No court reporter was present to record the 

proceedings, and neither party requested a settled statement.
4

On October 25, 2018, the trial court issued an interlocutory 

judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant and 

Bustamante, jointly and severally, in the amount of $170,000, 

plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent, on the 

promissory fraud and intentional fraud causes of action; against 

defendant only in the amount of $170,000 plus prejudgment 

interest at the rate of 10 percent on the breach of contract and 

breach of fiduciary duty causes of action; and $56,784 plus 

prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent against defendant 

only on the unjust enrichment cause of action. The trial court 

found that defendant acted with malice, oppression, and fraud 

and set a date of December 10, 2018 for the trial on punitive 

damages. On December 10, 2018, the trial court granted 

defendant’s oral motion to continue the trial to January 25, 2019.

Defendant was represented by counsel at the January 25, 

2019 trial on punitive damages. Defendant’s counsel initially 

made an oral request to continue the trial but subsequently 

withdrew that request and stated that he was ready to proceed.

During the trial court’s examination, defendant testified 

that he earned $4,000 per month for a two-and-a-half-year period 

ending in October 2014 and $6,000 per month from mid-2015 to 

November 2017.

Defendant further testified that in 2017 he owned real 

property in the City of Yorba Linda valued at $876,000. There 

was evidence that defendant transferred the property to his wife 

in 2017, and that an entity controlled by defendant subsequently 

purchased the property for approximately $800,000. Defendant 

testified that the property was valued at $1.3 million in 2018 and 

encumbered by an $876,000 loan. In July 2018, defendant sold 
5

the property to a third party for $38,000 in cash plus assumption 

of the existing loan.

Plaintiff presented evidence of bank accounts held by 

defendant or entities controlled by him but advised the trial court 

that defendant had failed to produce bank statements or records 

for many of those accounts. Defendant and his counsel admitted 

that they did not provide plaintiff with all of the banking records. 

At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court took the matter 

under submission.

On January 29, 2019, the trial court entered a final 

judgment in favor of plaintiff awarding her $170,000 in punitive 

damages. The final judgment included the trial court’s previous 

finding that defendant had acted with malice, oppression, and 

fraud. The final judgment also included the court’s previous 

damages award of $170,000, plus 10 percent prejudgment 

interest, against defendant and Bustamante, jointly and 

severally, on the promissory fraud and intentional fraud causes of 

action and against defendant only on the breach of contract and 

breach of fiduciary duty causes of action; and $56,784, plus 10 

percent prejudgment interest, against defendant only on the 

unjust enrichment cause of action.

Defendant filed a substitution of attorney on April 2, 2019 

indicating he was once again self-represented. On July 24, 2019, 

the trial court denied defendant’s ex parte application for an 

order shortening time on a motion to set aside and vacate the 

judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 on the 

grounds of defendant’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 
6

excusable neglect. Defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment 

was heard and denied on October 4, 2019.2

This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant claims his health issues, including diabetes and 

complications following amputation of his foot several months 

before the October 2018 trial, disabled him mentally and 

physically and impaired his ability to prepare the case for trial. 

Defendant further claims he requested a continuance of the 

October 22, 2018 trial date, and the trial court’s denial of that 

request denied him due process and violated his civil rights, the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et 

seq.) (ADA), and rule 1.100 of the California Rules of Court.3 

Defendant challenges the punitive damages award on the 

grounds that it is excessive and unsupported by the evidence.

I. Trial continuance

“A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound 

discretion of the trial court.” (Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles

(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395.) We will uphold the trial 

court’s discretion “‘if it is based on a reasoned judgment and 

complies with legal principles and policies appropriate to the case 

before the court.’’’ (Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, 

Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126, disapproved on another 

ground by ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 196, 

fn. 8.)

2 Defendant’s motion was continued twice, first on the trial 

court’s own motion, and then by stipulation of the parties.

3 California Rules of Court, rule 1.100 governs requests for 

accommodations by persons with disabilities.
7

On appeal, we presume the judgment to be correct and 

indulge all inferences and presumptions to support it regarding 

matters as to which the record is silent. (Denham v. Superior 

Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).) An appellant bears 

the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness by 

providing an adequate record that affirmatively demonstrates 

error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140–1141.)

When a trial date is set, the date is considered firm and 

continuances are disfavored. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a), 

(c).) A party seeking a continuance must make the request for a 

continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application with 

supporting declarations. (Rule 3.1332(b).) A continuance may be 

granted only upon a showing of good cause. (Rule 3.1332(c).)

The record contains no motion, ex parte application, or oral 

request by defendant to continue the October 22, 2018 trial date 

and no order denying any oral or written request for a 

continuance. The record also contains no oral or written request 

by defendant for an accommodation under the ADA or rule 1.100 

of the California Rules of Court and no order denying any such 

request. Where, as here, the proceedings regarding defendant’s 

purported request for a continuance were unreported, we do not 

presume that the trial court denied any request for continuance 

on any improper basis. We instead presume that the trial court 

based its decision on a proper assessment of the facts. (Denham, 

supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564.)

Defendant’s claim that he had no notice of the October 22, 

2018 trial date is unsupported by the record. Rather, the record 

shows that defendant was present at the December 5, 2017 case 

management conference at which the trial court set the 

October 22, 2018 trial date.
8

Defendant fails to establish any abuse of discretion.

II. Punitive damages

Defendant forfeited his appellate challenge to the amount 

of the punitive damages award by failing to file a motion for a 

new trial in the trial court below. The amount of a punitive 

damage award must be challenged in the trial court by way of a 

new trial motion, and the failure to do so precludes appellate 

review. (Schroeder v. Auto Driveaway Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 908, 

918–919 (Schroeder) [defendant could not contend for the first 

time on appeal that compensatory and punitive damages were 

unsupported by substantial evidence and were excessive]; Bate v. 

Jolin (1929) 206 Cal. 504, 508 [“[t]he point that damages are 

excessive cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must 

be presented to the lower court on the motion for a new trial”]; 

Campbell v. McClure (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 806, 807–808, 811–

812 [that the record did not reflect any evidence of appellant’s 

wealth could not be considered absent a new trial motion].) This 

rule applies whether the case was tried by a jury or, as here, by 

the court. (Glendale Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Marina View 

Heights Dev. Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 101, 122 [court trial]; see 

Bate v. Jolin, at p. 508 [court trial].)

Defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment under Code of 

Civil Procedure section 473 on the grounds of surprise, excusable 

neglect, or mistake did not preserve his appellate challenge to the 

amount of the punitive damages award. His failure to file a new 

trial motion resulted in the forfeiture of his claim that punitive 

damages were excessive or unsupported by the evidence. 

(Schroeder, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 918-919.)
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff shall recover her costs 

on appeal.

________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

________________________, P. J.

LUI

________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT