Court Opinion

ID: 9378852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 19:02:30.445224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.704913
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/23 Lee v. United Escrow Company 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CAROLINE S. LEE,                                          B313613

         Plaintiff and Appellant,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                          Super. Ct. No. BC697147)
         v.

UNITED ESCROW COMPANY
et al.,

         Defendants;

BOW TIE REALTY &
INVESTMENT, INC.,

     Intervener and
Respondent.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, David Sotelo, Judge. Affirmed.
     Jack H. Karpeles for Plaintiff and Appellant.
     Chad Biggins for Intervener and Respondent.
                 __________________________
       In Caroline Lee’s first appeal, she challenged a judgment
against her on a complaint-in-intervention filed by Bow Tie
Realty & Investment, Inc. (Bow Tie), relating to commissions Lee
owed on the sale of her real property. (Lee v. Lee et al., B303369
(Lee I).) Lee’s first appeal was dismissed after she failed to
comply with this court’s order that she file a notice designating
the record on appeal and proof of service of the notice of appeal.
       Lee now appeals from the trial court’s order awarding to
Bow Tie attorneys’ fees and costs incurred on appeal in Lee I. We
affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On March 7, 2018 Lee filed a complaint against Bow Tie,
United Escrow Company, and others alleging Lee entered into a
listing agreement in 2017 with Bow Tie for the sale of Lee’s real
property, and Bow Tie on “the eve of close of escrow” inserted a
“false[]” six percent commission on the agreement. Further,
United Escrow refused to release the amount of the claimed
commission to Lee. Lee asserted causes of action against Bow Tie
and United Escrow for breach of contract, resulting trust,
negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint also
asserted causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Bow
Tie’s chief executive officer, Jong Han Lee, and United Escrow’s
escrow officer, Tracy Ko.
       The trial court later dismissed Bow Tie and Jong Han Lee
from the action without prejudice, at Lee’s request. On July 17,
2018 Bow Tie filed a complaint-in-intervention, alleging causes of
action against Lee for breach of contract, quantum meruit, fraud,
and conversion. Bow Tie alleged Lee hired Bow Tie to sell the

                                2
real property; Bow Tie performed all its obligations under the
listing agreement except those Lee prevented it from performing;
and escrow closed on the property but Lee failed to pay Bow Tie
its 4 percent commission on the sale.
       After a court trial, on September 16, 2019 the trial court
entered a $672,892.19 judgment for Bow Tie.1 Lee appealed from
the judgment. (Lee I, B303369.) On September 2, 2020 this court
dismissed Lee’s appeal pursuant to California Rules of Court,
rule 8.140(b) for failure to timely serve and file a designation of
record on appeal and to file a proof of service of notice of appeal.
Lee then filed in the superior court an ex parte application for
relief from default, which the court denied.2 Lee again appealed,
and we affirmed. (Lee v. United Escrow Co. (Dec. 14, 2021,
B308739) [nonpub. opn.] (Lee II).)
       On December 15, 2020 Bow Tie filed a motion seeking
$48,327.50 in attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal in Lee I,
including fees incurred to oppose Lee’s two motions to vacate the
dismissal on appeal and her motion to recall remittitur (all of
which this court denied). Bow Tie served Lee with the motion by
mail and email. Lee did not file an opposition to the motion.

1     Judge Barbara M. Scheper presided over the court trial and
entered the judgment against Lee.
2     Judge Samantha P. Jessner.

                                 3
       After a hearing on April 7, 2021, the trial court granted
Bow Tie’s request for attorneys’ fees.3 On the same day, Bow Tie
filed and served by email a notice of ruling on the attorneys’ fees
motion. On April 15 the court entered a signed order granting
the attorneys’ fees request.
       Lee timely appealed.4

                          DISCUSSION

      Lee’s opening brief fails to present any legal argument
regarding the trial court’s April 7, 2021 order granting Bow Tie’s
request for attorneys’ fees for litigating the appeal in Lee I, which

3     Judge David Sotelo.
4      On her June 7, 2021 notice of appeal, Lee checked the box
indicating she was appealing “[a]n order after judgment under
Code of Civil Procedure, § 904.1(a)(2)” and identified the trial
court’s April 7, 2021 minute order as the order from which she
appealed. On October 5, 2021 Lee filed a case information
statement attaching Bow Tie’s April 7 notice of ruling on Bow
Tie’s attorneys’ fees motion. Lee also attached a June 1, 2021
judgment in favor of Bow Tie in the related action, Los Angeles
County Superior Court case No. 20STCV14403, as well as a June
21 notice of entry of that judgment and proof of service on Lee’s
attorney (Jack Karpeles). However, Lee’s operative notice of
appeal in this case does not identify the June 1 judgment.
Because Lee did not appeal the June 1, 2021 judgment, it is not
at issue in this appeal. We also note that Lee named United
Escrow and Jong Han Lee in her case information statement as
parties to the appeal, but this appeal of the Bow Tie attorneys’
fees order does not involve United Escrow or Jong Han Lee, and
further, Jong Han Lee was dismissed as a party in the trial court
at Lee’s request.

                                  4
is the subject of this appeal.5 Instead, Lee appears to contend
Bow Tie’s attorney, Chad Biggins, engaged in misconduct by
representing United Escrow and Ko in filing an ex parte
application for a “nunc pro tunc order” dated September 27, 2021
to amend a 2020 order awarding United Escrow attorneys’ fees
and costs. Lee previously appealed the September 27, 2021
minute order. (Lee v. United Escrow Co. (Oct. 10, 2022, B316719)
[nonpub. opn.] (Lee III).)
        On appeal in Lee III, Lee argued the trial court (Judge
Barbara M. Scheper) erred with respect to its ruling on United
Escrow and Ko’s September 20, 2021 ex parte application for a
nunc pro tunc order correcting a January 27, 2020 order granting
the postjudgment request for attorneys’ fees filed by United
Escrow and Ko, which United Escrow and Ko asserted had been
“‘filed blank.’” The court entered a minute order stating the ex
parte application was withdrawn and directing “‘the Judicial
Assistant to email counsel for defendant, United Escrow [C]o., a
copy of the Order filed on January 27, 2020.’” Lee asserted the
January 27, 2020 order attached to United Escrow and Ko’s
October 21, 2021 notice of ruling on the ex parte application was
“invalidly created” and “backdated,” and Judge Scheper was
disqualified from hearing the ex parte application. (Lee III,
B316719.)
        We dismissed Lee’s appeal as untimely, explaining there
was no evidence the trial court “backdated” the attorneys’ fees
order, which arguably could have rendered her appeal timely.
Although we did not rule on Lee’s contention Judge Scheper was
disqualified from ruling on the ex parte application, we noted,

5    Lee did not file a reply brief.

                                 5
“Judge Scheper did not rule on the ex parte application (which
was withdrawn), and further, the judge would only have been
disqualified if she considered ‘a contested issue’ on which she was
disqualified. (See § 170.6, subd. (a)(1).)” (Lee III, B316719.)
       Lee improperly reprises these arguments concerning
United Escrow and Ko’s September 20, 2021 ex parte application
in the guise of an appeal of the April 7, 2021 order awarding
attorneys’ fees to Bow Tie. Lee has failed to carry her burden to
demonstrate error by the trial court because she does not present
any legal argument explaining how Biggins’ representation of
United Escrow and Ko with respect to their September 20, 2021
ex parte application has any bearing on the trial court’s earlier
award of attorneys’ fees to Bow Tie. (See Hernandez v. First
Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 [“‘[T]o demonstrate
error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some
cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the
record.’”]; Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428,
1457 [plaintiffs forfeited claim of error by failing to “present
meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and
citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error”];
City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 287
[“[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not
supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the
reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he
wants us to adopt.”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)
[“Each brief must . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . support each point by
argument and, if possible, by citation of authority . . . .”].)

                                 6
                         DISPOSITION

     The order awarding attorneys’ fees to Bow Tie is affirmed.
Bow Tie is to recover its costs on appeal.

                                         FEUER, J.
We concur:

             PERLUSS, P. J.

             SEGAL, J.

                               7