Preview
NAA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-23-2017 1:36 pm
Case Number: CGC-15-544243
Filing Date: Jun-21-2017 1:36
Filed by: MELISSA DONG
Image: 05919026
REMITTITUR
HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES INC VS. VICTORIA L CARD ET AL
001005919026
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
DIVISION 3
Office of the County Clerk
San Francisco County Superior Court - Main
Attention: Civil Appeals
400 McAllister Street, Ist Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco County Superior Court |
JUN 212017 //
VICTORIA L. CARD,
Plaintiff and Appellant, oon s oS COURT
v. Deputy Clerk
HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
A148114
San Francisco County No. CGC15544243
* * REMITTITUR * *
I, Diana Herbert, Clerk of the Court of. Appeal of the State of California, for the First Appellate
District, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original opinion or decision
entered in the above-entitled cause on March 15, 2017 and that this opinion has now become final.
___Appellant LRespondent to recover costs
___Each party to bear own costs
___Costs are not awarded in this proceeding
___ See decision for costs determination
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Court affixed at my office this JUN 2 6 2017
Very truly yours,
Diana Herbert
Clerk of the Court
Deputy Clerk
P.O. Report:
Marsden Transcript:
Boxed Transcripts:
Exhibits:
None of the above:
INT!
rem1COPY
Filed 3/15/17
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT ‘Court of Appeal First Appellate District
DIVISION THREE
MAR 15 2017
Diana Herbert, Clerk
VICTORIA L. CARD, by Deputy Clerk
Plaintiff and Appellant, A148114
v.
HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., (City & County of San Francisco
Ct. No. CGC1
Defendant and Respondent. Super. Ct. No 5544243)
MEMORANDUM OPINION!
Defendant Victoria Card, acting in propria persona, appeals from a judgment after
a court trial of a collection action. The court awarded plaintiff HDM Furniture Industries,
Inc. (HDM) $45,461.11 in damages, interest, costs and attorney fees.
Card’s opening brief in this appeal consists primarily of allegations that she never
had any business dealings with HDM; that HDM no longer exists; that it fabricated the
complaint after its parent company was liquidated in bankruptcy; and that its attorney
made fraudulent reports to credit agencies to destroy her financially and generally
employs illegal collection methods, vexatious litigation and privacy violations. After this
recitation, Card’s brief concludes that HDM and its attorney “filed a corrupted dishonest
Complaint” for the sole purpose of harassment and extortion and “consented to fabricate
! We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
1z
91 qISI]JaIUT yUOsoId 0} UOTeI[Qo Jay SAaT[oI Jo sINpooosd oje]Jodde Jo sajna oy) Woy
Joy Jduloxo Jou saop JUST] poyosoidal-Jjos & se snyejs Joy Inq ‘Kowsoye ue jo WJ9UNq
ay} NOYIM Jfasioy SuNUosaidai st pred yey} Joey oy} 0) onomedurss ore aM
CLL ‘UF OZLT “32 ‘py) “VE sstwsip 0} pue pouopuege jeodde oy} woop 07
ynoo sty} Joy ayetsdosdde st 31 ‘aroy se ‘soseo Yyons Ul (‘ET TT ‘die pe'ddy'jea 91 ‘udns
‘“uasdag) ,,yWauINSse yuouTIed ynoyjIM yt Jo surejduros Ajosour juerjodde oy o1oyM,,
Jo pool[e Japisuos 0} posnbal jou st yn09 ayeJodde uy (‘19h ‘ISp Wy'ddy ep
€7 (p17) ‘ur ‘storsamyy payddy “a fosaysiy ‘pps ‘67S WH'TeD Ov (L00Z) ‘0 Hag
fo diyssopoasasuoy aa uy ‘(4a8dagq) 6ILT “ELI Pedy Ted E9T (S861) MappoD “A 4aduag)
“Jesstuisip 8urA4yysnf jeadde oy) Jo JuouUOpURQe Ue poUeap 2q “NOD ay} Jo UOHeIOSIP
ay} ut ‘Aew Jorg Suruado ue ur yuoUMNBIe [eBoy 9[qQISI]JoIU! 10 JUoUTIEd Aue oye[NONIE
0} uooR [IAS & ur yuelfedde ue Jo ommpre[q],, COSOT ‘ZIOT PEeddy Ted 99T (S861) Oy
‘xnfinby ‘a an8vidg) “pioos1 ay} 0} UoNeyI9 pue yuouNdIe Aq po1in9s0 JOLo Jey} MoYs
0} Anp s jueqfadde oy stay “Aysoyjne Sunsoddns 0} uoNeyo Jo yuouNze [eSo] o[qeztuso09
Aur JO ploasp Os[e ole SJoL1q S,pled “IOLA [eBo] AJIUApI JO ssuTTNI S$,1N0 oY} JOJ saseq
ay} ureydxa 0} sJorig Joy Ul SUTYJOU SI s10Y} IN ‘AdUIOYL Ue SITY 0} pJOJye JOU pynoo oy
ULUIOM OUTS P[O-se94-[g & SBA OYS JLY} UOTLIOPISUOS OFT De} 0} P|!ey JNO [ey oy}
sondie pled “psooe1 ay} 0} suoNe}10 Aq poyioddns ore suonsesse spied JO SUON
,,UO SpuRY JAY) 303 AY} aSTO JOAgJVYM Suljes}s pue sIe][O JO SUOT]]IU UT SIOIPoIO
[le 8uyyzys ‘Aoydnyueg uoNeprnbr sseu ev opty s1eaA May AIOAS JeY} PUTTOIED YON
Ul SJ9[vap SINYTUINY Jo Suey v ore osoyy [,] ‘sures jeroueury oBny y1youUEq pue wWo}sfs
[eso] ou} Surpesysru AT[eoIseq pue soAq s,a[dood Sursonsap ‘sjuoussesey pue sures
poyeoriqey JUoTNpney ‘sory WIM poyoed ore yor ‘syInsMeE] SNOJOALY SUIT JOJ UMOUY oe
synuretg °° * ‘drysioumo Suruneyjo yinsme] snopoaLy e Burpy Aq [225] aways poyeoriqey
suoo ysauoysip ‘poydnos yo young eB YOIYM,, JoVNUOD Us[O}s JO JUTNPNeY B UO paseq sem
NSM] SINGH Powosse preg Jotiq A[doi s0y UT ,,'Ssorppe 0} JUopuOdsad Joy SonOYINE
ou pur sjutod ou,, o10M aJay} yey} SuTAJosgo ‘asuodsal ydesSesed-ouo v poly WOH
. SOUOW JO Wins BIE] B JO
qyousq Apuonbasqns pur ssoutsng ut [2/5] uauioM Jopyo ue usyYy3Ly [pue] suey 0} J0/d &argument supported by the record and legal authority. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Card has failed to identify any theory of error or present
any relevant argument, so we deem her appeal abandoned.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.IOUT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jun-23-2017 1:34 pm
Case Number: CGC-14-541532
Filing Date: Jun-21-2017 1:33
Filed by: MELISSA DONG
Image: 05919021
REMITTITUR
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TH ETAL VS.
ALL PERSONS CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON
001005919021
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
350 MCALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
DIVISION 3 IL ED ~
San Francisco County Superior Court
Office of the County Clerk
San Francisco County Superior Court - Main JUN 2 1.2017
Attention: Civil Appeals
400 McAllister Street, Ist Floor CLERK E COURT
San Francisco, CA 94102 BY: Deputy Clark
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO et al.,
Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents,
v.
JOHN W. LEBOLT et al.,
Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants.
A145670
San Francisco County No. CGC14541532
* * REMITTITUR * *
I, Diana Herbert, Clerk of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, for the First Appellate
District, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original opinion or decision
entered in the above-entitled cause on March 10, 2017 and that this opinion has now become final.
___Appellant SRespondent to recover costs
___Each party to bear own costs
___Costs are not awarded in this proceeding
___See decision for costs determination
Witness my hand and the Seal of the Court affixed at my office this JUN 2 Q 2017
Very truly yours,
Diana Herbert
Clerk of the Court
S. Digner
Deputy #lerk
P.O. Report:
Marsden Transcript:
Boxed Transcripts:
Exhibits: __
None of the above: (7
tem1COPY
Filed 3/10/17
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1715(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as seated rule 8.1115(b). ‘This epinion has notbeen yng on er publication or fordered | published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Cour of Apaeal Fist Appelate DSU
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE hark 1G f0I7
Diana Herbert, Clerk
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE SSS pty Clerk
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN A145670
FRANCISCO, ET AL.,
was _def (City & County of San Francisco
Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Super. Ct, No. CGC14541532)
Respondents,
v.
JOHN W. LEBOLT, ET AL.,
Defendants, Cross-complainants
and Appellants.
Defendants and cross-complainants John and Richard LeBolt appeal from a
judgment of dismissal in a quiet title action brought pursuant to the Destroyed Land
Records Relief Law, Code of Civil Procedure, section 751.01 et seq. In ruling for
plaintiffs in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the superior court determined that
the LeBolts have no possible valid claim to specified real property in San Francisco.
The LeBolts challenge the judgment on the grounds it is unsupported by any
documentary evidence demonstrating the property in question was owned by the State of
California at a time when the LeBolts claim it was vested in fee in their predecessor in
interest, and that the superior court misinterpreted an 1868 state statute that disposed of
tidelands belonging to the State of California to preclude their claim of ownership.z
ay) aqeUSIsep pue xIj 0} paUreU UlaJOY SIOUOTSsIMWIOD Jo preog ay}—Aueduroo pres Jo
SYOB] PUL Spoq PROI SU} JOJ 9181G SIY} JO SpUL] OY} JOAO SNUTULIS} ples 0} sorueduios pres
Joy ABM Jo IYBL B JO aSN Y}-IIM JotpeSO},, speosyred oY} 0} poyuRIS sea PUR] SIU]
“SL8T Joquioidag ut speosyrer oy} 01 pans! ays ayp Jog wuoyed W ('ZS “OS PZTED 79
(p961) oostoun.g uvg fo djunop pun AyD “a 02 oifiong usayjnog) , Sang yUoayysty
pue pay] Uaemjoq JaaNg JoUULYD Jo YINOs Keg UOISSI] 38 Poyedo] Ay[eIDUDs sem
poloajas os Jooued a108-09 OY],, “Joe OY} JO SULIO} OY} YPM porpdusoo Any peospes yous
“SJUSWIDAOIGUMT JOF 0.YO‘OOT$ JO WNs oy} popudsdxo Yowd pure OUT) payeys B UIYIIM Uor3[9S
Sil epeur progres yoro papraosd ‘snuruno} prosper @ se asn 10} ,,‘syoop pue sazenbs orqnd
‘surseq ‘s}ooNs JO SAISNIOXA,, “YORS Sarow QE JO9]OS 0} [YSU e * * * AuedwIOD peoseEy oyloed
wiojsaqy pue Kueduiog peospiey slowed WoyyNog 0} poyuRsd osye Bog] Jo Joe OY
-sasodind o1jgnd 10} poarasad JOU SYxDO]q PU S}O] SY}
Jo []e “uorone orqnd ye ‘diysroumo ayeatid OFUT JJO [JOS 0} Pa}OOAIP BIM SIBUO[SSTUULOS
aYL ‘eor9UTUIOD Jo sasodind Joy pue soustUsAuod o1qnd Joy Aressadau sasn Joy}0
pur sutesp ‘spurs ‘sdijs ‘ssatd ‘sysop ‘sjoans Joy ‘oynyeys 94} Aq pojooup se ‘sore snoLeA
BULAIOSAI ‘SYOOT PUL S}O] OJUT voIe OY} PpIAIpans pue oul] JWOAIO}VM B Poyst[qeyso
“Keg uoIssly Je spueyopy 9y) poXaams pzeog oy} ‘Joe oY) 0} JueNsInd pue “juoWUTOdde
uody ‘siouoissrumm0d puejeply JO preog oy) se UmoUy aq 0} ‘suosiod sary) yurodde 0}
pazinbaz sem souxsa0p oy} joe oy} Jopuy) (‘GOV au) OTL“ ‘T § “eps “UD ‘89-L98I “sIeIS)
(oosToueL] Rg Jo AJUNOD pue ATID oY) UT poyeoo] ‘o}8IS Oy) 0} SuISUOTOq spuTeph pue
ysieul yes UIeLII0 Jo osodsip pue Aeans 0} Jow ue pojdope amMje[sIso'T OY} BOI UL,
aNnowdoyaova
‘oostouel,] URS
Jo Aqunog pur AyD 94) Jo Aoussy juaurdopaaspey oy} 01 Aouady Jossacong juepuodsor
pure jynurerd
Preview
NAA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-23-2017 1:36 pm Case Number: CGC-15-544243 Filing Date: Jun-21-2017 1:36 Filed by: MELISSA DONG Image: 05919026 REMITTITUR HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES INC VS. VICTORIA L CARD ET AL 001005919026 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 350 MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 DIVISION 3 Office of the County Clerk San Francisco County Superior Court - Main Attention: Civil Appeals 400 McAllister Street, Ist Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco County Superior Court | JUN 212017 // VICTORIA L. CARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, oon s oS COURT v. Deputy Clerk HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. A148114 San Francisco County No. CGC15544243 * * REMITTITUR * * I, Diana Herbert, Clerk of the Court of. Appeal of the State of California, for the First Appellate District, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original opinion or decision entered in the above-entitled cause on March 15, 2017 and that this opinion has now become final. ___Appellant LRespondent to recover costs ___Each party to bear own costs ___Costs are not awarded in this proceeding ___ See decision for costs determination Witness my hand and the Seal of the Court affixed at my office this JUN 2 6 2017 Very truly yours, Diana Herbert Clerk of the Court Deputy Clerk P.O. Report: Marsden Transcript: Boxed Transcripts: Exhibits: None of the above: INT! rem1COPY Filed 3/15/17 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT ‘Court of Appeal First Appellate District DIVISION THREE MAR 15 2017 Diana Herbert, Clerk VICTORIA L. CARD, by Deputy Clerk Plaintiff and Appellant, A148114 v. HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., (City & County of San Francisco Ct. No. CGC1 Defendant and Respondent. Super. Ct. No 5544243) MEMORANDUM OPINION! Defendant Victoria Card, acting in propria persona, appeals from a judgment after a court trial of a collection action. The court awarded plaintiff HDM Furniture Industries, Inc. (HDM) $45,461.11 in damages, interest, costs and attorney fees. Card’s opening brief in this appeal consists primarily of allegations that she never had any business dealings with HDM; that HDM no longer exists; that it fabricated the complaint after its parent company was liquidated in bankruptcy; and that its attorney made fraudulent reports to credit agencies to destroy her financially and generally employs illegal collection methods, vexatious litigation and privacy violations. After this recitation, Card’s brief concludes that HDM and its attorney “filed a corrupted dishonest Complaint” for the sole purpose of harassment and extortion and “consented to fabricate ! We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 1z 91 qISI]JaIUT yUOsoId 0} UOTeI[Qo Jay SAaT[oI Jo sINpooosd oje]Jodde Jo sajna oy) Woy Joy Jduloxo Jou saop JUST] poyosoidal-Jjos & se snyejs Joy Inq ‘Kowsoye ue jo WJ9UNq ay} NOYIM Jfasioy SuNUosaidai st pred yey} Joey oy} 0) onomedurss ore aM CLL ‘UF OZLT “32 ‘py) “VE sstwsip 0} pue pouopuege jeodde oy} woop 07 ynoo sty} Joy ayetsdosdde st 31 ‘aroy se ‘soseo Yyons Ul (‘ET TT ‘die pe'ddy'jea 91 ‘udns ‘“uasdag) ,,yWauINSse yuouTIed ynoyjIM yt Jo surejduros Ajosour juerjodde oy o1oyM,, Jo pool[e Japisuos 0} posnbal jou st yn09 ayeJodde uy (‘19h ‘ISp Wy'ddy ep €7 (p17) ‘ur ‘storsamyy payddy “a fosaysiy ‘pps ‘67S WH'TeD Ov (L00Z) ‘0 Hag fo diyssopoasasuoy aa uy ‘(4a8dagq) 6ILT “ELI Pedy Ted E9T (S861) MappoD “A 4aduag) “Jesstuisip 8urA4yysnf jeadde oy) Jo JuouUOpURQe Ue poUeap 2q “NOD ay} Jo UOHeIOSIP ay} ut ‘Aew Jorg Suruado ue ur yuoUMNBIe [eBoy 9[qQISI]JoIU! 10 JUoUTIEd Aue oye[NONIE 0} uooR [IAS & ur yuelfedde ue Jo ommpre[q],, COSOT ‘ZIOT PEeddy Ted 99T (S861) Oy ‘xnfinby ‘a an8vidg) “pioos1 ay} 0} UoNeyI9 pue yuouNdIe Aq po1in9s0 JOLo Jey} MoYs 0} Anp s jueqfadde oy stay “Aysoyjne Sunsoddns 0} uoNeyo Jo yuouNze [eSo] o[qeztuso09 Aur JO ploasp Os[e ole SJoL1q S,pled “IOLA [eBo] AJIUApI JO ssuTTNI S$,1N0 oY} JOJ saseq ay} ureydxa 0} sJorig Joy Ul SUTYJOU SI s10Y} IN ‘AdUIOYL Ue SITY 0} pJOJye JOU pynoo oy ULUIOM OUTS P[O-se94-[g & SBA OYS JLY} UOTLIOPISUOS OFT De} 0} P|!ey JNO [ey oy} sondie pled “psooe1 ay} 0} suoNe}10 Aq poyioddns ore suonsesse spied JO SUON ,,UO SpuRY JAY) 303 AY} aSTO JOAgJVYM Suljes}s pue sIe][O JO SUOT]]IU UT SIOIPoIO [le 8uyyzys ‘Aoydnyueg uoNeprnbr sseu ev opty s1eaA May AIOAS JeY} PUTTOIED YON Ul SJ9[vap SINYTUINY Jo Suey v ore osoyy [,] ‘sures jeroueury oBny y1youUEq pue wWo}sfs [eso] ou} Surpesysru AT[eoIseq pue soAq s,a[dood Sursonsap ‘sjuoussesey pue sures poyeoriqey JUoTNpney ‘sory WIM poyoed ore yor ‘syInsMeE] SNOJOALY SUIT JOJ UMOUY oe synuretg °° * ‘drysioumo Suruneyjo yinsme] snopoaLy e Burpy Aq [225] aways poyeoriqey suoo ysauoysip ‘poydnos yo young eB YOIYM,, JoVNUOD Us[O}s JO JUTNPNeY B UO paseq sem NSM] SINGH Powosse preg Jotiq A[doi s0y UT ,,'Ssorppe 0} JUopuOdsad Joy SonOYINE ou pur sjutod ou,, o10M aJay} yey} SuTAJosgo ‘asuodsal ydesSesed-ouo v poly WOH . SOUOW JO Wins BIE] B JO qyousq Apuonbasqns pur ssoutsng ut [2/5] uauioM Jopyo ue usyYy3Ly [pue] suey 0} J0/d &argument supported by the record and legal authority. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Card has failed to identify any theory of error or present any relevant argument, so we deem her appeal abandoned. DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.IOUT SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jun-23-2017 1:34 pm Case Number: CGC-14-541532 Filing Date: Jun-21-2017 1:33 Filed by: MELISSA DONG Image: 05919021 REMITTITUR SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TH ETAL VS. ALL PERSONS CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN OR LIEN UPON 001005919021 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 350 MCALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 DIVISION 3 IL ED ~ San Francisco County Superior Court Office of the County Clerk San Francisco County Superior Court - Main JUN 2 1.2017 Attention: Civil Appeals 400 McAllister Street, Ist Floor CLERK E COURT San Francisco, CA 94102 BY: Deputy Clark SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Respondents, v. JOHN W. LEBOLT et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. A145670 San Francisco County No. CGC14541532 * * REMITTITUR * * I, Diana Herbert, Clerk of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, for the First Appellate District, do hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the original opinion or decision entered in the above-entitled cause on March 10, 2017 and that this opinion has now become final. ___Appellant SRespondent to recover costs ___Each party to bear own costs ___Costs are not awarded in this proceeding ___See decision for costs determination Witness my hand and the Seal of the Court affixed at my office this JUN 2 Q 2017 Very truly yours, Diana Herbert Clerk of the Court S. Digner Deputy #lerk P.O. Report: Marsden Transcript: Boxed Transcripts: Exhibits: __ None of the above: (7 tem1COPY Filed 3/10/17 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1715(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as seated rule 8.1115(b). ‘This epinion has notbeen yng on er publication or fordered | published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Cour of Apaeal Fist Appelate DSU FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE hark 1G f0I7 Diana Herbert, Clerk SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE SSS pty Clerk REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN A145670 FRANCISCO, ET AL., was _def (City & County of San Francisco Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Super. Ct, No. CGC14541532) Respondents, v. JOHN W. LEBOLT, ET AL., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants. Defendants and cross-complainants John and Richard LeBolt appeal from a judgment of dismissal in a quiet title action brought pursuant to the Destroyed Land Records Relief Law, Code of Civil Procedure, section 751.01 et seq. In ruling for plaintiffs in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the superior court determined that the LeBolts have no possible valid claim to specified real property in San Francisco. The LeBolts challenge the judgment on the grounds it is unsupported by any documentary evidence demonstrating the property in question was owned by the State of California at a time when the LeBolts claim it was vested in fee in their predecessor in interest, and that the superior court misinterpreted an 1868 state statute that disposed of tidelands belonging to the State of California to preclude their claim of ownership.z ay) aqeUSIsep pue xIj 0} paUreU UlaJOY SIOUOTSsIMWIOD Jo preog ay}—Aueduroo pres Jo SYOB] PUL Spoq PROI SU} JOJ 9181G SIY} JO SpUL] OY} JOAO SNUTULIS} ples 0} sorueduios pres Joy ABM Jo IYBL B JO aSN Y}-IIM JotpeSO},, speosyred oY} 0} poyuRIS sea PUR] SIU] “SL8T Joquioidag ut speosyrer oy} 01 pans! ays ayp Jog wuoyed W ('ZS “OS PZTED 79 (p961) oostoun.g uvg fo djunop pun AyD “a 02 oifiong usayjnog) , Sang yUoayysty pue pay] Uaemjoq JaaNg JoUULYD Jo YINOs Keg UOISSI] 38 Poyedo] Ay[eIDUDs sem poloajas os Jooued a108-09 OY],, “Joe OY} JO SULIO} OY} YPM porpdusoo Any peospes yous “SJUSWIDAOIGUMT JOF 0.YO‘OOT$ JO WNs oy} popudsdxo Yowd pure OUT) payeys B UIYIIM Uor3[9S Sil epeur progres yoro papraosd ‘snuruno} prosper @ se asn 10} ,,‘syoop pue sazenbs orqnd ‘surseq ‘s}ooNs JO SAISNIOXA,, “YORS Sarow QE JO9]OS 0} [YSU e * * * AuedwIOD peoseEy oyloed wiojsaqy pue Kueduiog peospiey slowed WoyyNog 0} poyuRsd osye Bog] Jo Joe OY -sasodind o1jgnd 10} poarasad JOU SYxDO]q PU S}O] SY} Jo []e “uorone orqnd ye ‘diysroumo ayeatid OFUT JJO [JOS 0} Pa}OOAIP BIM SIBUO[SSTUULOS aYL ‘eor9UTUIOD Jo sasodind Joy pue soustUsAuod o1qnd Joy Aressadau sasn Joy}0 pur sutesp ‘spurs ‘sdijs ‘ssatd ‘sysop ‘sjoans Joy ‘oynyeys 94} Aq pojooup se ‘sore snoLeA BULAIOSAI ‘SYOOT PUL S}O] OJUT voIe OY} PpIAIpans pue oul] JWOAIO}VM B Poyst[qeyso “Keg uoIssly Je spueyopy 9y) poXaams pzeog oy} ‘Joe oY) 0} JueNsInd pue “juoWUTOdde uody ‘siouoissrumm0d puejeply JO preog oy) se UmoUy aq 0} ‘suosiod sary) yurodde 0} pazinbaz sem souxsa0p oy} joe oy} Jopuy) (‘GOV au) OTL“ ‘T § “eps “UD ‘89-L98I “sIeIS) (oosToueL] Rg Jo AJUNOD pue ATID oY) UT poyeoo] ‘o}8IS Oy) 0} SuISUOTOq spuTeph pue ysieul yes UIeLII0 Jo osodsip pue Aeans 0} Jow ue pojdope amMje[sIso'T OY} BOI UL, aNnowdoyaova ‘oostouel,] URS Jo Aqunog pur AyD 94) Jo Aoussy juaurdopaaspey oy} 01 Aouady Jossacong juepuodsor pure jynurerd