Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Sanwa Technologies v. Titus CA2/4

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B347323

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (14K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/2/26 Sanwa Technologies v. Titus CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR

SANWA TECHNOLOGIES, B347323
INC.,
Los Angeles County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No.
24SMCV03836
v.

PAUL JOSEPH TITUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Edward Moreton, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Joseph Titus, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
Ross, Wolcott, Teinert & Prout, and Roy Silva for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
Plaintiff Sanwa Technologies, Inc. (Sanwa) filed a
complaint against defendants Paul Joseph Titus and Hayat Bi1
alleging causes of action for rescission, “declaratory judgment,”
and permanent injunction. The trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of Sanwa on all three claims. On appeal, Titus
contends that the trial court committed various legal errors but
has not provided an adequate record for us to review his
arguments. Because Titus has not met his burden of showing the
trial court erred, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Most of the relevant filings and documents relating to this
case are not contained in the record. Accordingly, much of the
background information that follows is taken from the trial
court’s case register.
In August 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint against
defendants in the trial court. Although that complaint is not in
the appellate record, the judgment indicates that the complaint
alleged causes of action for rescission, declaratory judgment, and
permanent injunction. The contract that formed the basis of the
legal dispute between Sanwa and Titus is likewise not in the
record.
Defendants filed an answer and cross-complaint. Plaintiff
demurred to the cross-complaint. The answer, cross-complaint,
demurrer, and order adjudicating the demurrer are not in the
record.
In January 2025, Sanwa filed a motion for summary
judgment against Titus. The court granted the motion in April

1 Hayat Bi is not a party to this appeal.

2
2025. Sanwa’s moving papers, Titus’s opposition papers, and the
court order granting the motion are not in the record. The
reporters’ transcript of the hearing is also not in the record.
On May 21, 2025, the trial court entered judgment in favor
of plaintiff against defendants on all three causes of action. Titus
timely appealed.

DISCUSSION
I. Titus has not met his burden of showing the trial
court erred by granting Sanwa’s motion for
summary judgment
A party is entitled to summary judgment only if there is no
triable issue of material fact and the party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A triable
issue of fact exists if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier
of fact to find the fact in favor of the party opposing summary
judgment. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th
826, 850.) We review the trial court’s ruling on a summary
judgment motion de novo, liberally construe the evidence in favor
of the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts
concerning the evidence in favor of the opponent. (Miller v.
Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 460.)
We cannot engage in our usual de novo review because we
do not have an adequate record. “[I]t is a fundamental principle
of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily
presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to
demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate
court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies
reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th
594, 608–609 (Jameson).) Unless the record shows otherwise, we

3
make all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s order,
including presuming that any evidence “ ‘which would have
authorized the order’ ” was presented below. (Id. at p. 609.)
“ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that
the issue be resolved against [the appellant].’ ” (Ibid.)
“ ‘When practicing appellate law, there are at least three
immutable rules: first, take great care to prepare a complete
record; second, if it is not in the record, it did not happen; and
third, when in doubt, refer back to rules one and two.’ ”
(Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609, fn. 11.) These rules apply to
self-represented litigants like appellant. (See Dilbert v. Newsom
(2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 317, 323.)
Titus argues that the trial court “erred in granting
summary judgment because triable factual issues existed and
[Titus’s] evidence was ignored.” Alternatively, Titus argues the
contract between the parties was “coerced and unconscionable.”
As Sanwa points out, however, we cannot assess these arguments
because we do not have before us the moving and opposing
papers, nor do we have the evidence, if any, submitted by both
sides, including the contract. Titus thus forfeited his arguments
and did not meet his burden of showing the trial court erred in
granting Sanwa’s motion for summary judgment.

II. The court lacks jurisdiction to review Titus’s
challenge to the trial court’s costs award, and in
any event, Titus has not met his burden of
showing error
Titus also argues that the trial court erred after entering
judgment by (1) awarding Sanwa costs and (2) amending the
judgment to reflect the award of costs after Titus filed the notice

4
of appeal. The fatal flaw with these arguments is that Titus has
not appealed from the order awarding costs, nor has he appealed
from the amended judgment. As a result, his arguments fall
outside the scope of this appeal. (Silver v. Pacific American Fish
Co., Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 688, 693 [“A postjudgment order
which awards or denies costs . . . is separately appealable[,]” “and
if no appeal is taken from such an order, the appellate court has
no jurisdiction to review it”].)
Even assuming this court had jurisdiction to review Titus’s
arguments regarding costs, we would reject them for several
reasons. We begin by noting that “ ‘filing a notice of appeal does
not stay any proceedings to determine the matter of costs and
does not prevent the trial court from determining a proper award
of attorney fees claimed as costs.’ ” (Korchemny v. Piterman
(2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1052.) For this reason, Titus’s
contention that the trial court could not award costs to Sanwa
after Titus filed his notice of appeal is without merit.
Furthermore, it appears that Titus’s arguments regarding
the trial court’s award of costs are moot. While it is not entirely
clear, the case register appears to indicate that although the trial
court entered an amended judgment reflecting the costs awarded,
the court later vacated that amended judgment because this
appeal was pending. Titus cannot challenge an amended
judgment that was ultimately vacated.
Lastly, even assuming Titus’s arguments regarding costs
were not moot and this court had jurisdiction to consider them,
Titus has not provided an adequate record to satisfy his burden of
demonstrating that the trial court’s costs award was erroneous.2

2 With respect to the award of costs, the record contains two
documents: Titus’s motion to disallow improperly claimed costs

5
For these reasons, we reject Titus’s contentions regarding
the trial court’s award of costs.

III. Titus’s argument that he was denied notice and
due process is unavailing
Titus lastly argues that the judgment and post-judgment
orders are void because Sanwa and the clerk of the Court of
Appeal mis-served critical filings, denying him notice and due
process. Titus raises two separate contentions in this regard.
First, he asserts that he was not served with the notice of filing of
notice of appeal. Titus is mistaken. That document is contained
in the appellate record, and the certificate of service includes
Titus.
Titus’s second argument is that his rights were violated
because various documents were served to an outdated address
after “jurisdiction had transferred to the Court of Appeal and
while [Titus] was no longer represented.” Under California Rules
of Court, rule 2.200, “[a]n attorney or self-represented party
whose mailing address, telephone number, fax number, or e-mail
address (if it was provided under rule 2.111(1)) changes while an
action is pending must serve on all parties and file a written
notice of the change.” It is unclear from the record whether Titus
complied with this rule when he purportedly changed addresses.
What is clear, however, is that the limited record before us does
not affirmatively demonstrate that Titus’s rights to notice and

and Sanwa’s opposition to Titus’s motion. Titus omits Sanwa’s
memorandum of costs and also the trial court’s ruling on Titus’s
motion.

6
due process were violated by the trial court or Sanwa. We
therefore reject Titus’s contentions.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Sanwa is awarded its costs on
appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TAMZARIAN, J.

We concur:

ZUKIN, P. J.

MORI, J.

7