Filed 8/17/20 Meseonzhnik v. Dovzhenko CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ALEX MESEONZHNIK,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VSEVOLOD DOVZHENKO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B297633

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC645235) 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION;

NO CHANGE IN APPELLATE 

JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

The opinion filed on July 27, 2020 and not certified for 

publication, is modified as follows:

The language below shall be inserted on page 10 as the last 

paragraph of the Discussion section:

“Contrary to the assertion in Dovzhenko’s petition for 

rehearing, California Rules of Court, rule 2.259(c) does not apply. 

That rule provides: “If a technical problem with the court’s 

electronic filing system prevents the court from accepting an 

electronic filing on a particular court day, and the electronic filer 

demonstrates that he or she attempted to electronically file the 

document on that day, the court must deem the document as filed 
2

on that day.” Dovzhenko did not submit evidence or ever advise 

the trial court there was a technical problem with the court’s 

electronic filing system. Nor does he argue there was a such a 

technical problem. To the contrary, the evidence shows there was 

no technical problem. According to Dovzhenko, he submitted the 

request for a statement of decision and an objection to the 

proposed judgement “virtually simultaneously” on March 8, 2019,

with the objection “filed” three minutes after the request was 

“received.” Further, although Dovzhenko acknowledges that the 

request for a statement of decision “was later returned from the 

Clerk’s Office,” he failed to take corrective action to have the

request filed. Under rule 2.259(a)(4), Dovzhenko was 

“responsible for verifying that the court received and filed any 

document that the electronic filer submitted to the court 

electronically.”

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

This order does not change the appellate judgment.

____________________________________________________________

PERLUSS, P. J. SEGAL, J. DILLON, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution. 
Filed 7/27/20 Meseonzhnik v. Dovzhenko CA2/7 (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 SEVEN

ALEX MESEONZHNIK,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

VSEVOLOD DOVZHENKO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B297633

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC645235) 

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Gregory Keosian, Judge. Affirmed.

Baranov & Wittenberg and Michael M. Baranov for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Robert Gentino, Robert Gentino and Sherri 

Matta for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
4

Vsevolod Dovzhenko appeals from a judgment entered 

against him in a breach of contract action. Dovzhenko argues the 

trial court erred in failing to issue a statement of decision 

following a bench trial despite his timely request. He also asserts 

the court abused its discretion in denying an ex parte application 

seeking to vacate the judgment based on the lack of a statement 

of decision. We affirm. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Trial Court Enters Judgment After a Bench Trial

On December 29, 2016, Alex Meseonzhnik filed a civil 

complaint against Dovzhenko, alleging a single cause of action for 

breach of a promissory note. The case was tried in a bench trial 

over a three-day period, commencing on the afternoon of January 

23, 2019, continuing on the afternoon of January 24, and 

concluding on the morning of January 25. The parties did not 

employ a court reporter for the trial. Following closing

arguments, the trial court took the matter under submission. 

On February 26, 2019, the trial court signed a “proposed 

judgment” in favor of Meseonzhnik and, on the same day, the 

clerk filed and served by mail the proposed judgment. The 

proposed judgment stated, “A statement of decision not being 

requested pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure section] 632 and 

[California Rules of Court, rule] 3.1590, the court, upon a trial on 

the merits, after hearing testimony of both Plaintiff and 

Defendant, and on a review of the evidence submitted, and on the 

arguments of counsel, finds for Plaintiff and against Defendant in 

the amount of $80,000 with interest, as well as costs and fees 

pursuant to the promissory note. [¶] Parties may within 10 days 

after service of this proposed judgment, serve and file objections 
5

thereto.” 

On March 8, 2019, Dovzhenko served and electronically 

filed with the court an objection to the proposed judgment in 

which he stated that the judgment was premature because the 

court had not issued a statement of decision. On the same day, 

Dovzhenko served and submitted for electronic filing a “Request 

for a Statement of Decision.” The court’s electronic filing system

placed an electronic stamp on the left margin of the request’s 

cover page, which stated: “Electronically Received 03/08/2019 

11:56.” However, for unknown reasons, the request for a 

statement of decision was not electronically filed with the court.

Dovzhenko’s request was not shown in the “case information” on 

the trial court’s website.

On March 13, 2019, Meseonzhnik filed a response to 

Dovzhenko’s objection to the proposed judgment. Meseonzhnik 

stated that the objection “failed to ‘request a statement of 

decision to address the principal controverted issues’ and failed 

to specify any principal controverted issues within ten days as 

required by [California Rules of Court] rule 3.1590(d).” 

On March 13, 2019, the trial court entered a judgment in 

favor of Meseonzhnik and against Dovzhenko on Judicial Council 

Form JUD-100. The judgment contained checked boxes

indicating that a statement of decision was not requested.

Meseonzhnik served Dovzhenko with notice of entry of judgment 

on March 15, 2019. Based on the judgment, on April 4, 2019, the 

clerk filed a writ of execution to enforce the judgment. 

B. Dovzhenko’s Ex Parte Application

On April 30, 2019, Dovzhenko filed an ex parte application 

to vacate the judgment and quash the writ of execution, or in the 

alternative, to shorten the time to hear a motion for such relief. 
6

In his application, Dovzhenko argued, “[d]espite a timely request 

for a statement of decision and an objection to the proposed 

judgment, no statement of decision was issued, and judgment 

was entered based on a non-binding tentative decision.” 

Dovzhenko acknowledged that “the new electronic filing system 

processed the Request for Statement of Decision as ‘Received,’

while processing the Objection to the Proposed Judgment as 

‘Filed.’” Dovzhenko’s ex parte application did not state whether 

the court transmitted a notice of rejection for his request.1 

Although Dovzhenko did not attach a confirmation from the 

electronic filing system showing that the request was filed, he

maintained that he had “electronically filed” the document on 

March 8, 2019. Dovzhenko also asserted that he was entitled to 

relief on an ex parte basis because the deadline to file an appeal 

from the judgment was approaching, and there was insufficient 

time for him to request that the court vacate the judgment 

through a regularly noticed motion. 

In his opposition, Meseonzhnik contended that Dovzhenko 

had not shown good cause for ex parte relief because Dovzhenko 

had waited seven weeks after the entry of judgment to seek 

relief from his own failed attempt to file a request for statement 

of decision. Meseonzhnik also claimed that granting Dovzhenko’s

application would reward his act of “gamesmanship” because 

Dovzhenko had strategically delayed in seeking to vacate the 

judgment to obtain “ex parte release of levied funds to enable 

[Dovzhenko] to empty the account and conceal the funds.” 

1 Dovzhenko states in his opening brief that “[a] copy [of the 

request for a statement of decision] was later returned from the 

Clerk’s Office.” 
7

On April 30, 2019, following a hearing, the trial court 

issued a minute order denying Dovzhenko’s ex parte application. 

Dovzhenko timely appealed from the judgment.

2

DISCUSSION

A. Applicable Law

Code of Civil Procedure3 section 632 provides: “In superior 

courts, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, written 

findings of fact and conclusions of law shall not be required. The 

court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual 

and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal 

controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party 

appearing at the trial. The request must be made within 10 days 

after the court announces a tentative decision unless the trial is 

concluded within one calendar day or in less than eight hours 

over more than one day in which event the request must be made 

prior to the submission of the matter for decision.” (§ 632; see 

also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(d), (n).)

“A statement of decision gives the trial court ‘an 

opportunity to place upon [the] record, in definite written form, 

2 On October 31, 2019, the same day that Meseonzhnik filed 

his brief in this court, the trial court purported to issue an order 

denying Dovzhenko’s request for a statement of decision because 

the trial lasted “7.35 hours” and Dovzhenko did not request a 

statement of decision “prior to the submission of the case.” The 

trial court did not have jurisdiction to issue this order. (See Code 

Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).) Accordingly, we deny Meseonzhnik’s 

request to augment the record to include this order.

3 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure.
8

its view of the facts and the law of the case, and to make the case

easily reviewable on appeal by exhibiting the exact grounds upon 

which judgment rests.’ [Citation.] ‘If a statement of decision is 

given, it provides us with the trial court’s reasoning on disputed 

issues and “is our touchstone to determine whether or not the 

trial court’s decision is supported by the facts and the law.”’” 

(A.G. v. C.S. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1282, italics omitted.) 

A party is entitled to a statement of decision if he or she makes a 

timely request and specifies the principal controverted issues to 

be addressed by the court. (§ 632; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

3.1590(d).) If, however, the parties fail to request a statement of 

decision, the court is not required to provide one. (Nellie Gail 

Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 996; 

Acquired II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 

Cal.App.4th 959, 970.)

B. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Not Issuing a 

Statement of Decision

Premised on the trial lasting eight hours or more, 

Dovzhenko argues that the trial court erred in failing to issue a 

statement of decision because the court served the proposed 

judgment on February 26, 2019, and he timely “submitted” a 

request for a statement of decision on March 8, 2019.4 

Meseonzhnik, on the other hand, contends that Dovzhenko 

cannot establish that his request was timely because, absent an 

4 Where, as here, the trial court’s decision on a submitted 

matter was served on the parties by mail, the 10-day time limit 

for requesting a statement of decision is extended by an 

additional five days pursuant to section 1013, subdivision (a). 

(Kroupa v. Sunrise Ford (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 835, 841; Staten v. 

Heale (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1090.)
9

affirmative showing that the trial exceeded eight hours, 

Meseonzhnik had to request a statement of decision prior to the 

submission of the case for decision. We need not decide whether 

Dovzhenko established that the duration of the trial was eight 

hours or more because Dovzhenko has not shown that he timely 

made a request for a statement of decision regardless of the 

trial’s length.

5 

Where an issue involves the application of law to

undisputed facts, we review the matter independently. (See 

Boling v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 898, 

912 [“[i]t is true that the application of law to undisputed facts 

ordinarily presents a legal question that is reviewed de novo”];

Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1014, 

1018; Ghirardo v. Antonioli (1994) 8 Cal.4th 791, 801.)

“A party’s entitlement to a statement of decision depends 

on the party making a timely request.” (Gorman v. Tassajara 

5 According to the minute orders, the trial commenced with 

opening statements at 1:30 p.m. on January 23, 2019. (§ 581, 

subd. (a)(6) [“[t]rial shall be deemed to actually commence at the 

beginning of the opening statement . . . ”].) Trial resumed on 

January 24 at 1:30 p.m., with the concluding trial session 

beginning on January 25 at 10:00 a.m. However, the minute 

orders do not state when the sessions concluded. (See generally 

In re Marriage of Gray (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 974, 979-980) [“the 

eight-hour rule in section 632 requires a simple and obvious mode 

of timekeeping that everyone, including attorneys, can keep track 

of. This means that, for purposes of keeping time of trial under 

section 632 in civil proceedings . . . the time of trial means the 

time that the court is in session, in open court, and also includes 

ordinary morning and afternoon recesses when the parties 

remain at the courthouse”].) 
10

Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 61.) “A request for 

statement of decision calls on the trial court to act. Such a 

request cannot reasonably be deemed accomplished until the

court knows what is requested.” (Staten v. Heale, supra, 57 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1090.)

Los Angeles County Court Rules, rule 3.4(a), titled 

“Mandatory Electronic Filing” provides, “Pursuant to the 

operative General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil 

(‘General Order’), represented parties in civil actions must file 

documents electronically, unless the court exempts parties from 

doing so.” California Rules of Court, rules 2.250 through 2.261 

set forth the procedures governing the electronic filing and 

service of documents. Under rule 2.259(a)(1), “[w]hen a court 

receives an electronically submitted document, the court must 

promptly send the electronic filer confirmation of the court’s 

receipt of the document, indicating the date and time of receipt.” 

“If the document received by the court . . . complies with filing 

requirements and all required filing fees have been paid, the 

court must promptly send the electronic filer confirmation that 

the document has been filed. The filing confirmation must 

indicate the date and time of filing and is proof that the 

document was filed on the date and at the time specified.” (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.259(a)(2.) In addition, “[t]he court’s 

endorsement of a document electronically filed must contain the 

following: ‘Electronically filed by Superior Court of California, 

County of __________, on _____ (date),’ followed by the name of 

the court clerk.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.259(d)(1).)

“In the absence of the court’s confirmation of receipt and 

filing, there is no presumption that the court received and filed 

the document.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.259(a)(4).) “The
11

electronic filer is responsible for verifying that the court received 

and filed any document that the electronic filer submitted to the 

court electronically.” (Ibid.) Finally, rule 2.259(b) provides, “If 

the clerk does not file a document because it does not comply with 

applicable filing requirements or because the required filing fee 

has not been paid, the court must promptly send notice of the 

rejection of the document for filing to the electronic filer.” 

Dovzhenko contends that he made a request for a 

statement of decision through his March 8 submission on the 

trial court’s electronic filing system.

6 However, Dovzhenko has 

failed to show that he filed a request for a statement of decision 

with the trial court within the 10-day period required by section 

632 for a trial greater than eight hours. Although Dovzhenko 

electronically submitted a request for filing through the court’s 

electronic filing system, there was no indication that the 

document had been filed. Dovzhenko’s request was stamped, 

“Electronically Received,” but there was no rule 2.259(d)(1) 

endorsement on the document that it had been “electronically 

filed” by the court clerk. Dovzhenko also did not submit the 

court’s confirmation that the document had been filed. The “case 

information” on the court’s website does not contain an entry for 

Dovzhenko’s request for a statement of decision, much less one 

showing the request was filed. There is nothing in the record to 

suggest that, at the time the trial court entered the March 13, 

2019 judgment in favor of Meseonzhnik, the court was aware that 

Dovzhenko had tried, but failed, to file a request for a statement 

of decision.

6 Dovzhenko does not argue that his March 8, 2019 objection, 

which was filed, constituted a request for a statement of decision.
12

Given that the absence of the court’s filing confirmation,

under rule 2.259(a)(4), there was no presumption that Dovzhenko 

filed the request. Further, under rule 2.259(a)(4), Dovzhenko 

was responsible for verifying that the court filed the request he 

had submitted. Under these circumstances, Dovzhenko has not 

shown that he timely made his request for a statement of 

decision within the 10-day statutory period. Because 

Dovzhenko’s request was untimely, the trial court was not 

required to issue a statement of decision. (See Staten v. Heale, 

supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 1086-1087, 1090 [rejecting argument 

that request for statement was “made” when mailed to court; 

request for decision “made” when filed in the trial court because 

“[s]uch a request cannot be reasonably deemed accomplished 

until the court knows what is requested”]; In re Marriage of 

McDole (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 214, 219 [“[h]er request [for a 

statement of decision] was mailed on September 14, and filed on 

September 15, within 15 days of September 1 and was therefore 

timely”].)7

7 Dovzhenko argues that the trial abused its discretion in 

denying his ex parte application seeking to vacate the judgment

on nonstatutory grounds. However, Dovzhenko did not file a 

notice of appeal from the trial court’s April 30, 2019 order 

denying his ex parte application.
13

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Meseonzhnik shall recover his

costs on appeal.

DILLON, J.*

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.