Cnty. of Sacramento v. Rawat

• Decision Date: 20 May 2021
• Docket Number: C087429
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kiran RAWAT, as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

65 Cal.App.5th 858

280 Cal.Rptr.3d 267

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Kiran RAWAT, as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

C087429

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed May 20, 2021

Kiran Rawat and Raj Singh, in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants.

Lisa A. Travis, County Counsel and Susan R. Masarweh, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MAURO, J.

The County of Sacramento (County) filed an action to abate building and housing code violations at two properties owned or managed by Raj Singh and Kiran Rawat, individually and as trustee of the SitaRam Living Trust dated 2007 and the Sita Ram Trust. The trial court appointed a receiver under Health and Safety Code section 17980.7¹ to take control of and rehabilitate the properties upon the County's motion. Singh appeals from the trial court's order approving the receiver's final account and report and discharging the receiver.

As a pro. per. litigant, Singh is entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigants. ( Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 669, 884 P.2d 126 ; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 416 ( Nwosu ).) Accordingly, he must follow the rules of appellate procedure. ( Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 672 ( Tanguilig ); Nwosu, at p. 1247, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 416.) Those rules require an appellate brief to support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation to authority and to provide a citation to the record for a factual assertion. ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (a)(1)(C).) "[W]e may disregard factual contentions that are not supported by citations to the record [citation] or are based on information that is outside the record [citation]. We may disregard legal arguments that are not supported by citations to legal authority [citation] or are conclusory [citation]." ( Tanguilig, at p. 520, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, fn.omitted; accord Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 ( Lipworth ).) Further, we may treat a point that is not supported by cogent legal argument as forfeited. ( Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co . (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 78 [the appellate court is not bound to develop the appellant's argument for him or her]; In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 ; In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408-410, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 453.) Singh was advised of these appellate rules in prior appeals. ( Fernandes v. Singh (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 932, 942-943, 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 751 ( Fernandes ); Lipworth, at p. 817, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 ; Singh v. U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc. (Oct. 12, 2006, C049473) 2006 WL 2902494 [nonpub. opn.].)

Many of Singh's contentions are unintelligible. We address his claims as best we can discern them. It appears he contends (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the receiver's final account and report and petition for discharge because the County had dismissed its complaint; (2) the trial court also lacked jurisdiction because certain individuals and entities were not served with the final account and report and petition for discharge; (3) the trial court erred in approving the receiver's final account and report and discharging the receiver because the account and report was not a separate document, "[a]ll the words are from hate of County Counsel toward Singh," and the receiver did not sign the petition for discharge; (4) the trial court erred in granting the petition for discharge because County Counsel represented the receiver and the petition showed a conspiracy between County Counsel and the receiver; (5) the order appointing the receiver is subject to challenge for a variety of reasons; and (6) various additional challenges are asserted.

The County filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, asserting that the appeal is being prosecuted for an improper, bad faith motive and is indisputably without merit. While we do not condone the filing of a frivolous appeal, we decline to dismiss the appeal and will instead consider Singh's appellate claims.

We conclude (1) the dismissal of the County's complaint did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to settle the receiver's final account and discharge the receiver; (2) Singh fails to demonstrate by citation to the record and factual and legal analysis that Oliver and unidentified occupants and creditors were persons or entities to whom notice of the final account and report and petition for discharge must be given; (3) we do not consider Singh's claim that "a separate document" was required because the claim is not supported by any legal authority or coherent analysis; we do not consider his claims about the lack of detail in the receiver's account and report and "hate of County Counsel" because those claims are also undeveloped; and his claim that the receiver did not sign the final account and report and petition for discharge is not supported by the record; (4) Singh's claims that County Counsel represented the receiver and that there was a conspiracy between County Counsel and the receiver are also forfeited by Singh's failure to provide citations to the record supporting his factual assertions; (5) this Court dismissed defendants’ appeal of the order appointing the receiver and we cannot consider any further challenges to that order; and (6) we treat Singh's claims, which are not supported by citation to legal authority and/or the record and reasoned argument, as forfeited.

We will affirm the trial court's order.

BACKGROUND

The County filed a complaint against Kiran Rawat a.k.a Karen Singh, individually and as trustee of the SitaRam Living Trust dated 2007 and the Sita Ram Trust, and Raj Singh a.k.a. Ragevendra Singh, for injunctive relief to abate violations of State and County housing and building codes and public nuisance and for the appointment of a receiver in relation to two properties located in Sacramento (hereafter the Stockton Boulevard and Baker Avenue properties). The County alleged that Rawat, as trustee of the Sita Ram Trust, owned the Stockton Boulevard property; Rawat, as trustee of the Sitaram Living Trust dated 2007, owned the Baker Avenue property; and Singh managed, controlled and derived monetary benefits from the two properties. The County further alleged that it had notified defendants of various building and housing code violations at the properties and asked defendants to correct and abate the violations but defendants had failed to do so.

The County moved to appoint J. Benjamin McGrew as receiver pursuant to section 17980.7 to take possession and control of the properties and cure the conditions that constituted a nuisance. Defendants, represented by former attorney Keith Oliver, opposed the motion.² The trial court granted the County's motion and appointed McGrew as the receiver on October 8, 2013.

Defendants, through Oliver, filed a notice of appeal of the order appointing the receiver. This Court exercised its inherent authority to dismiss the appeal because it found that prosecution of the appeal would sanction egregious and potentially criminal misconduct. It appears from the dismissal order that Oliver claimed he did not prepare or review documents filed under his name.³

The receiver filed his initial report on December 12, 2013. He related that the properties were gutted shells of what were once rental housing units and there was an extensive history of transient activity at the properties. He said Singh and his attorney failed to provide information and turn over possession of the properties to the receiver. For example, the receiver asked defendants to disclose all encumbrances on the properties but Singh and his attorney did not provide any information. Nevertheless, the receiver discovered IRS liens against the properties totaling $325,970.41, and the receiver was trying to negotiate with the IRS to release or modify the liens. According to the receiver, the solution to most receivership cases lay in the equity and priority of liens and the IRS’ decision on its liens would determine the outcome of this case. The receiver also reported that no monies had been turned over to or collected by him or identified by defendants, and the estate had no funds and cannot obtain third party funding until the issue of the IRS liens was resolved.

The receiver further reported that a fire at the Stockton Boulevard property caused injuries to people Singh had allowed to access the property after the commencement of the receivership estate. Code Enforcement reported that the structure on the Stockton Boulevard property was beyond repair and the structure could be imminently dangerous to those in or near it. The receiver, thus, asked for an order to remove the structure. The receiver said because there are no funds in the receivership estate, the County would likely have to remove the structure. The receiver asked the trial court to order Singh to cooperate and turn over all property, documents and information that had any impact on the properties and to direct the receiver to permit the demolition of the structure on the Stockton Boulevard property.

The County filed a request to dismiss the entire action without prejudice on March 13, 2015. The action was dismissed on the same date.

The receiver filed a final account and report and petition for discharge on May 18, 2018. We will discuss the final account and report below. Singh, acting in pro. per., filed an opposition to the receiver's account and report and petition for discharge, raising many of the claims he urges on appeal.

The trial court approved the receiver's final account and report, exonerated his undertaking, and discharged him from all responsibilities as receiver. Singh, acting in pro. per., appeals from that order. The notice of appeal states that defendants, including Singh,...