8.1115 a. v. Ozaeta (Oct. 22, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
rule 8.1115 a v. WARD OZAETA
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
California (CA)
Court
California Supreme Court
Decided
Oct. 22, 2025
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
O'Rourke (J.) (unanimous Court)
GUARDIAN PIAZZA D'ORO LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent,..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2972027Not Officially Published(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, 8.1115)Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, restrictscitation of unpublished opinions in California courts.NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTSCalifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibitscourts and parties from citing or relying onopinions not certified for publication or orderedpublished, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b).This opinion has not been certified for publicationor ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.GUARDIAN PIAZZA D'OROLLC, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.WARD OZAETA, Defendant and Appellant.D085374|Filed 10/22/2025(Super. Ct. No. 37-2024-00021317-CU-UD-CTL)APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San DiegoCounty, Joel R. Wohlfeil, Judge. Affirmed.Attorneys and Law FirmsWard Ozaeto, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.Todd A. Brisco & Associates and Todd A. Brisco, Allison K.Higley and Veronica R. Guzman for Plaintiff and Respondent.OpinionO'ROURKE, J.*1 Defendant and appellant Ward Ozaeta and plaintiffand respondent Guardian Piazza D'Oro, LLC (Guardian)underwent an unlawful detainer bench trial after Guardiansued Ozaeta for past due rent and other damages. The courtawarded Guardian possession of the premises and enteredjudgment in its favor. Ozaeta, a self-represented litigant,thereafter unsuccessfully moved to vacate the judgment inpart based on his asserted mistake, inadvertence or excusableneglect. Ozaeta contends that (1) the trial court erroneouslyassumed Guardian did not receive proper or timely notice ofhis motion to vacate the judgment; (2) his failure to submitevidence before trial based on his misunderstanding of trialprocedures was inadvertent and excusable, warranting reliefunder Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b);(3) the court “fail[ed] to substantively evaluate significantdefenses” he presented at trial or on his motion and“summarily dismissed critical evidence,” violating his right todue process; and (4) the court improperly awarded holdoverdamages along with unpaid rent, an impermissible doublerecovery, thereby abusing its discretion. We affirm, in partbecause the absence of an adequate record is fatal to Ozaeta'sclaims and requires that the appeal be resolved against him.(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.)FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDIn May 2024, Guardian sued Ozaeta for unlawful detainerseeking unpaid rent from April 2022 through March 2023.The matter was eventually set for a bench trial in October2024.1 Guardian submitted a trial brief and presented severalwitnesses. The parties used a joint exhibit list. Ozaeta, whoappeared remotely, did not submit a trial brief.2 The trialwent unreported. Thereafter, the court entered a $91,920judgment in Guardian's favor, consisting of $35,772 in pastdue rent, $54,648 in “holdover” damages (calculated at$99.36 in daily rental value multiplied by 550 holdover days,from April 1, 2023, to October 2, 2024), $750 in prejudgmentcosts and $750 in attorney fees. Ozaeta did not request astatement of decision.Ozaeta moved to vacate the judgment and to restorepossession of the premises. He argued the court enteredits judgment because of his own mistake, inadvertence andexcusable neglect, claiming that while he was present attrial, he did not submit necessary arguments or evidence on“critical defenses” such as habitability violations, waiver ofrent enforcement, and defects in the notice to pay rent or quit.He argued he was denied a full and fair opportunity to presentmeritorious defenses, and the court did not give him statutoryprotections under Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.2 andthe Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. § 3901 etseq.). Ozaeta asked the court to use its inherent and equitablepowers to vacate the judgment.*2 The court heard Ozaeta's motion to vacate on October 25,2024. Guardian did not appear, and did not oppose Ozaeta'smotion. The hearing on that motion was also unreported. The
GUARDIAN PIAZZA D'ORO LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent,..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2court denied the motion. It found it did not appear Ozaetahad timely served Guardian under Code of Civil Proceduresection 1005, subdivision (b). The court also ruled the motionlacked substantive merit, citing case law stating that self-represented litigants who claimed a mistake in assuming theycould competently represent themselves did not constitutemistake or excusable neglect to justify setting aside thejudgment. It observed Ozaeta had submitted a declarationstating that during the trial he “did not submit the necessaryarguments or evidence regarding critical defenses” but thecourt found nothing indicating the reason why he did notpresent these arguments or evidence. The court ruled: “Thisappears to be a situation where [Ozaeta] mistakenly believedhe could competently represent himself at trial. This is not asituation giving rise to relief from the judgment.”Ozaeta filed this appeal.DISCUSSIONI. Appellate PrinciplesIn reviewing a judgment on appeal, this court applies afundamental principle that the judgment is presumed correct,and it is the appellant's burden to affirmatively show error.(Jameson v. Desta, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608-609; Denhamv. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, 566; 65283 TwoBunch Palms Building LLC v. Coastal Harvest II, LLC (2023)91 Cal.App.5th 162, 168.) “ ‘ “[T]o demonstrate error, anappellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogentargument supported by legal analysis and citation to therecord.” ’ ” (Allos v. Poway Unified School Dist. (2025) 112Cal.App.5th 822, 832.) In meeting his or her burden, theappellant must provide an adequate record. (Jameson, at p.609.) “ ‘We cannot presume error from an incomplete record.’” (Reales Investment, LLC v. Johnson (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th463, 468.)Appellants typically provide a reporter's transcript of oralproceedings on appeal, but if they do not or cannot,they may submit an agreed or settled statement. (Cal.Rules of Court, rules 8.134 & 8.137; see Leslie v. Roe(1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104.) While these items “may not benecessary if the appeal involves legal issues requiring denovo review,” when a case involves review for substantialevidence or abuse of discretion, “a reporter's transcript oran agreed or settled statement of the proceedings will beindispensable.” (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery(2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 476, 483.) The appellant bears theburden to provide such a record if he or she “ ‘ “intends to raiseany issue that requires consideration of the oral proceedingsin the superior court ....” ’ ” (Ibid.; Sanowicz v. Bacal (2015)234 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1034, fn. 5, citing Cal. Rules of Court,rule 8.120(b).) These “rules apply to a party appearing inpropria persona as to any other party.” (Flores v. Departmentof Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199,205.)II. Claim Concerning Timely Notice ofOzaeta's Motion to Vacate JudgmentOzaeta contends the trial court erroneously assumed thatGuardian's counsel did not receive proper notice of hismotion to set aside the judgment. He maintains the recordshows “documented” and “conclusive” proof that Guardianwas served, including evidence that its counsel “explicitlyacknowledged receipt of the motion documents” 19 daysbefore the scheduled hearing and also received personaltelephone notice 21 days before the scheduled hearing. Ozaetaargues there is “no room for ambiguity or confusion aboutproper notice.”We do not reach the argument. In addition to questioningwhether Guardian was timely served,3 the trial court ruledthe motion lacked substantive merit. As we explain, Ozaetadoes not demonstrate error on that point, which we turn tonext.III. Claim of Excusable Neglect WarrantingCode of Civil Procedure Section 473 Relief*3 Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b)provides in part: “The court may, upon any terms as maybe just, relieve a party or his or her legal representativefrom a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding takenagainst him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence,surprise, or excusable neglect.” “ ‘It is clearly establishedthat “[a] motion for relief under [Code of Civil Procedure]section 473 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trialcourt and an appellate court will not interfere unless thereis a clear showing of abuse.” ’ ” (Burnete v. La Casa DanaApartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1266 (Burnete),quoting Stafford v. Mach (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1180.)
GUARDIAN PIAZZA D'ORO LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent,..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3Ozaeta contends his “procedural oversight at trial—failing to submit evidence prior to [t]rial and due to[his] remote appearance—was inadvertent and excusable,warranting relief under [Code of Civil Procedure section]473[, subdivision] (b).” He asserts he was “unaware ofprocedural consequences, received no judicial guidance,and showed no deliberate disregard.” Ozaeta argues “[i]tis a critical component of procedural fairness that courtsprovide clear procedural guidance, especially for self-represented litigants” but maintains the court “providedno notice or explanation that failure to formally submitevidence during remote appearance would result in exclusionof defenses and objections.” He seeks to distinguish thecases relied upon by the trial court, Burnete, supra, 148Cal.App.4th 1262, as involving a self-represented litigantwho consciously assumed the risk of representing himself anddemonstrated deliberate disregard of procedural requirementsand consequences, of which he was “fully aware,” andHopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401 asinvolving an out-of-state attorney with procedural knowledgewho failed to act prudently in representing himself.Ozaeta's contentions are unavailing for several reasons.First, he has not provided a reporter's transcript or settledstatement of the hearing, preventing us from fully assessingthe trial court's reasoning. Given that we review thecourt's decision for abuse of discretion, that record is“indispensable.” (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery,supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 483.) Further, Ozaeta's pointabout courts having to give “clear procedural guidance” orexplanation to litigants is unsupported by authority, so wedisregard it. (Allos v. Poway Unified School Dist., supra,112 Cal.App.5th at pp. 832-833 [“ ‘ “[W]e may disregardconclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legalauthority” ’ ”].) Setting these deficiencies aside, we rejectOzaeta's contentions on the merits.Burnete is analogous. It made clear that when a party is self-represented, that fact taken alone is not a basis for relief underCode of Civil Procedure section 473. (Burnete, supra, 148Cal.App.4th at p. 1270.) “ ‘A doctrine generally requiringor permitting exceptional treatment of parties who representthemselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts andwould be unfair to the other parties to litigation.’ ” (Ibid.) Alitigant who represents him or herself is not entitled to moreleniency with respect to adherence to legal requirements.(Id. at p. 1267; see also County of Orange v. Smith (2005)132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444.) The self-represented litigantin Burnete, due to his lack of understanding of the lawand inexperience, was unable to present an expert or getphotographs or medical records into evidence. (Burnete, atp. 1267.) He claimed he was confused and unable to recallevents due to medication and communicated poorly becauseEnglish was not his native language. (Ibid.) But that litigant,as Ozaeta did here, “had his day in court” (id. at p. 1268) andwas not entitled to special consideration due to his decision torepresent himself. (Id. at p. 1267 [“ ‘ “the in propria personalitigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure asan attorney” ’ ”].) The court thus denied his motion to setaside the judgment against him based on mistake or excusableneglect. (Id. at pp. 1267-1268.)4*4 The Burnete court further held the trial court didnot err in declining to grant the litigant equitable relieffrom the judgment. (Burnete, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th atpp. 1268-1269.) It found the conclusion supported byRappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, a case alsorelied upon by Ozaeta. The self-represented litigants inRappleyea had received misinformation from a court clerk,and also from their own counsel, resulting in an over$200,000 default judgment against them. (Burnete, at p.1269; Rappleyea, at pp. 978-979.) Under those circumstancesinvolving “ ‘rare events,’ ” the court “ ‘narrowly’ ” heldthe litigants were entitled to equitable relief. (Burnete, at pp.1269-1270; Rappleyea, at pp. 984-985.) It “ma[d]e clear thatmere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionallylenient treatment. Except when a particular rule providesotherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally toparties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorneyrepresentation.” (Rappleyea, at pp. 984-985.) Ozaeta's motionpresented no such unique circumstances.IV. Claim of Due Process ViolationOzaeta's claim of a due process violation is premised onthe trial court's asserted failures to consider defenses heassertedly presented at trial and in his motion to vacatethe judgment, and its decision to “summarily” dismiss hisevidence. These contentions, however, require considerationof the record of oral proceedings. Absent them, the argumentsfail for the lack of an adequate record and application ofthe presumption of correctness. (Jade Fashion & Co., Inc. v.Harkham Industries, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 635, 644[“Where the appellant fails to provide an adequate recordof the challenged proceedings, we must presume that theappealed judgment or order is correct, and on that basis,affirm”]; Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570,
GUARDIAN PIAZZA D'ORO LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent,..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4576 [“In the absence of a proper record, which would includeeither a reporter's transcript or settled statement (neither ofwhich we have in this case), we must presume the trial courtacted properly”]; In re Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th973, 992 [absent a reporter's transcript, “it is presumed thatthe unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absenceof error”].)V. Claim of Duplicative DamagesOzaeta finally contends the trial court “improperly awarded[Guardian] holdover damages alongside unpaid rent,” givingit an impermissible double recovery. He argues under acase titled Bledsoe v. Jackman, Guardian's unlawful detaineraction was an election of remedies such that it forfeitedits right to holdover damages by its pursuit of unpaid rent.According to Ozaeta, Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn MotorHotels, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1032 (Superior Motels)holds that holdover damages generally require proceedingsseparate from the unlawful detainer action, and Emerald BayCommunity Assn. v. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. (2005) 130Cal.App.4th 1078 (Emerald Bay) prohibits double recoveryfor the same harm. He further argues Guardian failed tomitigate its damages as required by Civil Code section1951.2, subdivision (c)(1). He argues the “judgment awardingholdover damages must be reversed or vacated to preventunjust enrichment....”We are unable to locate the Bledsoe v. Jackman case at thereported citation Ozaeta provides.5 Otherwise, Ozaeta doesnot discuss Superior Motels, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d 1032 orEmerald Bay, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th 1078 in any depth orgive pinpoint citations for the propositions he says they standfor. Apart from citing them, he does not present reasonedlegal argument to support his assertions. We are not requiredto develop parties' arguments for them on appeal. (MeridianFinancial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657,684.) Ozaeta's failure to provide reasoned legal argumentforfeits the argument on appeal. (Holden v. City of San Diego(2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418; Landry v. Berryessa UnionSchool Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700 [“[w]henan issue is unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legalargument it may be deemed abandoned and discussion by thereviewing court is unnecessary”].)*5 We have reviewed the authorities in any event. EmeraldBay, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th 1078 involved a plaintiff'sbreach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faithand fair dealing claims against its insurer for failing toinvestigate, provide a defense and denying coverage. (Id.at pp. 1082, 1084.) The trial court granted judgment in thedefendant's favor following a bench trial on standing and acoverage issue, ruling the plaintiff “ ‘ha[d] no supportabledamages in this dispute.’ ” (Id. at p. 1085.) On appeal, theplaintiff argued (among other things) that it had sustainedcompensable financial damages on its breach of contract andcovenant claims, but the appellate court disagreed, pointingout the defendant had paid a portion of the plaintiff's legalexpenses, and an excess insurer paid the balance of thoseexpenses plus the settlement in an underlying action. (Id. atp. 1089.) Thus, the “plaintiff cannot show it suffered anycontract damages.” (Ibid.; see also id. at p. 1092.) EmeraldBay does not stand for the duplicative damages propositionadvanced by Ozaeta, and more generally, it has no relevanceto this unlawful detainer action.Superior Motels, supra, 195 Cal.App.3d 1032 did concern anunlawful detainer and the propriety of a monetary damagesaward. But the facts and circumstances of the case arecomplex (id. at p. 1041) and “highly unusual” (id. atp. 1070). The lengthy decision and absence of pinpointcitations makes it difficult to assess Ozaeta's assertion aboutits holding. In Superior Motels, due to an extended stayof proceedings, the defendant remained in possession ofcommercial premises, prompting the trial court to awarddamages for the premises' rental value while the stay was ineffect. (Id. at pp. 1067-1068.) In making this award, the lowercourt stated: “ ‘Under equitable principles, plaintiff is entitledto the after tax net operating profits received by ... defendantsin possession of the subject premises from November 24,1975 to the date possession ... is in fact delivered to plaintiffas compensation for the loss incurred because of the failureto receive possession of said premises.’ ” (Id. at p. 1068.)On appeal, the defendants contended that the award of aftertax net operating profits exceeded the legally permissibleunlawful detainer recovery; and more specifically that thecourt erred by “(1) awarding net profits as the equivalentof the property's fair rental value; (2) enhancing the awardwith prejudgment interest; and, (3) extending the awardof net profits beyond entry of the judgment until the datepossession was surrendered.” (Superior Motels, Inc., supra,195 Cal.App.3d at p. 1069.) The appellate court agreed. Itpointed out that unlawful detainer is a statutory proceedinggoverned by statutory requirements that must be strictlyfollowed, including as to the mode and measure of damages.(Id. at pp. 1070-1071.) “Collateral matters are excluded
GUARDIAN PIAZZA D'ORO LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent,..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5[citation], particularly those seeking damages for breachesof lease provisions. ‘It is well settled that damages allowedin unlawful detainer proceedings are only those which resultfrom the unlawful detention and accrue during that time.[Citation.] Although a lessee guilty of unlawful detention mayhave also breached the terms of the lease contract, damagesresulting therefrom are not necessarily damages resultingfrom the unlawful detention. As such, [a lessor] is precludedfrom litigating a cause of action for these breaches in unlawfuldetainer proceedings.’ ” (Id. at p. 1070.) Thus, the SuperiorMotels court held that the trial court erred by equating “‘rents, issues and profits’ ” with the property's reasonablerental value, particularly where the parties did not introduceevidence concerning the property's rental value. (Id. at pp.1069, 1071-1072.) It held that the court's order for futuredamages “beyond the date of the judgment until such timeas [defendants] return possession of the premises” was notpermitted in unlawful detainer actions. (Id. at p. 1073; see alsoHudec v. Robertson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163.)*6 We see nothing in Superior Motels, supra, 195Cal.App.3d 1032 that supports Ozaeta's proposition thatan unlawful detainer plaintiff must commence a separateproceeding to obtain holdover damages. To the contrary, “[i]tis well established that losses sustained after termination of atenancy may be recovered, and that ‘damages awarded ... inan unlawful detainer action for withholding possession of theproperty are not “rent” but are in fact damages.’ [Citation.]Thus, a landlord is entitled to recover as damages thereasonable value of the use of the premises during the timeof the unlawful detainer either on a tort theory or a theoryof implied-in-law contract.” (Adler v. Elphick (1986) 184Cal.App.3d 642, 649.) The record here indicates the court'saward of holdover damages, based on the daily rental valueand the number of days Ozaeta was in possession up to the dayof trial and judgment, was not the same as the future damagesawarded in Superior Motels. Ozaeta has not demonstrated thecourt's award of holdover damages in Guardian's unlawfuldetainer action was improper.As for Ozaeta's claim that Guardian failed to mitigate itsdamages, that turns on the evidence at trial. (PowerhouseMotorsports Group, Inc. v. Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A.(2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 867, 884 [“Whether a plaintiff actedreasonably to mitigate damages ... is a factual matter to bedetermined by the trier of fact”].) It was Ozaeta's burden toprove Guardian failed to mitigate its damages. (Ibid.) Thus, itwas the trial court's prerogative to assess the reasonablenessof Guardian's damages and efforts to mitigate them, assumingGuardian had an obligation to do so. The absence of oralproceedings is fatal to that claim.DISPOSITIONThe judgment is affirmed. Guardian shall recover its costs onappeal.WE CONCUR:McCONNELL, P. J.BUCHANAN, J.All CitationsNot Reported in Cal.Rptr., 2025 WL 2972027Footnotes1The case actually first went to trial in August 2024. Ozaeta did not appear, and the court entered judgmentin Guardian's favor. Ozaeta later successfully moved to set aside the judgment based on his mistake,inadvertence and excusable neglect as he believed the trial was set 30 minutes later than its actual time.2Ozaeta's appellant's appendix includes a trial brief on his behalf, but it is preceded by a notation that it was“not considered [or] accepted by [the] court.” The register of actions does not show Ozaeta filed a trial brief.3In reciting the background facts, Ozaeta asserts that the court in denying his motion “commented that[Guardian] likely did not oppose or appear for the hearing because they did not receive the notice.” The court'sminute order for the motion does not “illuminate the factual and legal predicate for the ... order[ ]” (Rhule
GUARDIAN PIAZZA D'ORO LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent,..., Not Reported in... © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1229) on this point. That the court's “writtenrulings ... are quite succinct ... is further indication that a reliable record of what transpired at the hearingsis indispensable for our review.” (Ibid.) We have no basis to question the trial court's finding on this point,and presume it is correct.4Ozaeta's contention is like that of the litigant in Burnete, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th 1262. He says that “[d]ueto his unfamiliarity with the precise procedural requirements of submitting evidence, [he] inadvertently failedto formally present evidence supporting critical defenses.” He maintains the “oversight was not intentionalor willful” but “resulted entirely from [his] misunderstanding of trial procedures.” Ozaeta complains that thetrial court did not provide guidance or inform him “of the severe consequences of not formally submittingevidence” and thus he “was genuinely unaware that his procedural misstep would completely preclude theconsideration of the substantial defenses to the case.”5The reporter citation, 94 Cal.App.2d 650, pulls up Goldring v. Goldring (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 643, a marriagecase involving a petition to modify support. (Id. at p. 644.) We caution that litigants should not delegate briefingto artificial intelligence tools.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access