Jones v. Brookens

Filed 5/19/06  Jones v. Brookens CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

                        Appeals from an order and a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kazuharo Makino, Judge.  Affirmed.

                        Rima Jones, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

                        Larry J. Brookens, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent Larry Brookens.

                        King & Kennick and Robert C. Kreps for Defendant and Respondent Coreland Companies.

*                *                *

                        Rima Jones appeals from the trial court's orders setting aside a default judgment, imposing discovery sanctions against her, and granting a motion for nonsuit, and from the subsequent judgment.  Jones has failed to provide us with an adequate record, and we therefore affirm.

FACTS

                        Rima Jones filed a complaint against Larry Brookens, her former lawyer, and Coreland Companies, the property manager of the building where Brookens leased office space, apparently for perceived violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §  12101 et seq.) (ADA).^[1]  Brookens moved to quash service of summons for lack of jurisdiction, but before the motion could be heard, Jones filed a first amended complaint.  Brookens' motion was denied.  He did not answer the first amended complaint.

                        Ten months later, the trial court entered a default judgment against Brookens in favor of Jones for more than $81,000.  Brookens subsequently moved to set the judgment aside, which the trial court granted.  Coreland moved to compel Jones's deposition and other discovery; the trial court granted the motion and imposed sanctions of $672.00 against Jones. 

                        The case went to trial against Coreland in March 2005.  A jury was impaneled, and Jones put on her case, calling herself as her only witness and submitting as exhibits photographs of the building, a copy of the building permit, and some of her medical records.  At the close of Jones' case, Coreland moved for nonsuit, which was granted.

DISCUSSION

                        The notices of appeal filed by Jones indicate that she is appealing from the order setting aside the default against Brookens, the order imposing discovery sanctions against her, and the judgment of nonsuit in favor of Coreland.  In her briefs, Jones complains about the trial court's attitude toward her and the behavior of Brookens' counsel.  She contends Brookens knew of her first amended complaint and refused to respond to it, subsequently lying to the trial court in order to get the default set aside.  She argues her disabilities are obvious and the building was not in compliance with the ADA.  Unfortunately, her briefs are largely unintelligible and the record is incomplete.

                        When we review a trial court's judgment or order, we presume it is correct unless the appellant demonstrates otherwise.  â€