Court Opinion

ID: 9890627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:04:19.670097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:50.351103
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/13/23 Buchheim v. Anaya CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MARK BUCHHEIM et al.,                                              B312307

         Plaintiffs and Appellants,                                Los Angeles County
                                                                   Super. Ct. No.
         v.                                                        19STCV04540

GUSTAVE ANAYA et al.,

         Defendants and Respondents.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Steven J. Kleifield, Judge. Affirmed.
      Bradley Bernstein Sands and Erin Bernstein for Plaintiffs
and Appellants.
      Law Offices of Adam C. Rapaport, Adam C. Rapaport;
Benedon & Serlin, Gerald M. Serlin and Wendy S. Albers for
Defendants and Respondents.
                      ____________________
      Some investors and remodelers flipped homes together.
The relationship soured and the investors sued. The trial court
granted summary judgment for the remodelers. The investors’
opening appellate brief does not cite evidence of a disputed fact.
We affirm.
      The parties are individuals and their companies. The
investors are Mark Buchheim, Tatjana Luethi, and their
company, Prima Impresa, LLC. The remodelers are Gustave
Anaya, Olivia Anaya Valenzuela, Maria Anaya Taglioli, and their
company, United Home Buyers of America, Inc.
      The investors and remodelers started working together 15
years ago. The investors would lend money to purchase homes,
the remodelers would remodel and sell the homes, and the
investors would receive their money back with interest.
      This case involves a project in which the investors loaned
money, the remodelers bought property at an auction, and then
the parties disagreed about the scope of the renovations.
      The investors designated the following facts as undisputed.
After negotiations between the investors and the remodelers,
investor Buchheim presented a purchase agreement for the
investors to buy the property. Buchheim emailed the remodelers
and said: “STOP FUCKING AROUND! [¶] YOU ARE
ALLOWING US TO SUE AND A LOT MORE IF YOU DON’T
SIGN!” The remodelers ultimately signed and Buchheim bought
the property from them. As part of the purchase, a title company
“wired $471,381.46” to the investors, “to pay off [the investors’]
Note with interest.”
      The purchase agreement had a covenant not to sue. The
investors say they were under economic duress when they bought
the property and signed this covenant.
      The investors sued. They claimed the remodelers never
repaid the loans for the property.

                                2
       The trial court granted summary judgment for the
remodelers because their repayment with interest meant the
investors had no damages, and the covenant not to sue barred the
action. The court entered a final judgment in favor of remodelers
Valenzuela and Taglioli. (Although the summary judgment
involved all the remodelers, the trial court did not enter a final
judgment as to remodelers Gustave Anaya and United Home
Buyers of America, Inc. because they have a pending cross-
complaint against the investors. Gustave Anaya and the
company therefore are not respondents in this appeal.)
       We affirm because the investors establish no disputed facts
about the damages issue.
       We review an order granting summary judgment under the
familiar standard. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 826, 843, 850–851, 860.)
       The investors’ briefing is deficient. Appellate briefs must
support references to matters in the record by citing the volume
and page number of the record where the matter appears. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) On review of a summary
judgment, appellants have the burden affirmatively to
demonstrate error. (Claudio v. Regents of the University of
California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 230.) This means
appellants must identify a triable issue by citing the record.
(Ibid.) Specifically, to establish a disputed fact, parties must
point to evidence in the record. (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles
(1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 178, fn. 4.) Separate statements are
not evidence, so citing a separate statement does not prove a
disputed fact. (Ibid.)
       The investors have not met their burden to show the trial
court erred when it found the investors suffered no damages.

                                3
This ground was an independent and adequate ground for
summary judgment. The investors devote two pages of their
opening brief to their argument on this issue. These pages
neither cite nor describe the underlying evidence of disputed
facts. Instead, the investors tell us to “[c]ompare” three pages of
the renovators’ motion for summary judgment with one page of
their own opposition to summary judgment. The page of the
investors’ opposition cites a separate statement, which in turn
cites deposition testimony. Neither the opposition nor the
separate statement is evidence and they are insufficient to prove
a factual dispute.
       Citation deficiencies plague the brief. The investors’
statement of fact section exclusively cites a few pages of their
opposition. Again, this tactic for establishing a fact is improper.
       The investors’ reply does not redress these problems.
       First, the investors contend their opening brief “provided
extensive competent evidence of their damages.” This is
incorrect.
       The investors’ reply attempts to fix some problems, but it
comes too late. The reply adds citations to evidence and develops
arguments about the disputed facts for the first time. We need
not and here we do not consider points raised for the first time in
a reply brief. (REO Broadcasting Consultants v. Martin (1999)
69 Cal.App.4th 489, 500.) An opening brief is the proper place to
provide citations and set forth arguments. This both promotes
fairness to the opposing party and provides the appellate court
with adequate briefing from both sides. The belated points in the
reply are inadequate.
       The investors’ reply demonstrates the problems deficient
briefing can create. For example, the reply discusses unpaid

                                 4
architecture fees the investors say are evidence of damages. The
investors offered no argument about architecture fees and no
citations to evidence about these fees in their opening brief. Yet
the investors complain the remodelers “[i]gnored” this evidence.
This is backwards, for the investors failed to raise this issue. It
was appropriate for the remodelers to omit what the opening
brief treated as a nonissue.
       As another example of the problem with waiting until the
reply to cite evidence, the investors’ reply cites evidence that
contradicts facts they had deemed undisputed. The reply quotes
deposition testimony of investor Luethi, who said, “We never got
any money.” Yet the investors’ separate statement said it was
“Undisputed” the investors were wired over $470,000. By
offering this citation only in reply, the remodelers prevent the
investors from discussing these conflicting stances.
        The investors have not met their burden to show grounds
for reversal of the summary judgment on the damages issue.
                           DISPOSITION
       We affirm the judgment and award costs to Olivia Anaya
Valenzuela and Maria Anaya Taglioli.

                                           WILEY, J.

We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.                 VIRAMONTES, J.

                                 5