Capital One v. Shaw CA4/3

── Capital One v. Shaw CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 Capital One v. Shaw CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CAPITAL ONE, N.A. Plaintiff and Respondent, G064269 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01309963) ASLAM M. SHAW, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Donald F. Gaffney, Judge. Affirmed. On the court’s own motion, the record is augmented. Aslam M. Shaw, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Hunt & Henriques, Kurtiss A. Jacobs, Donald Sherrill and Anthony J. DiPiero for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *  Defendant Aslam M. Shaw appeals from a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Capital One, N.A. in the amount of $6,714.02. The main argument Shaw appears to offer is that the default judgment was “fraudulently obtained . . . by filing fraudulent documents and intentionally not serving on Shaw.” He offers no legal argument and does not provide facts sufficient to support a claim of reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 2, 2023, Capital One filed a limited civil case against Shaw for $6,420.52 for breach of contract apparently arising from an unpaid credit card. On June 5, Shaw filed two identical documents entitled “Answer to Complaint; Counter Claim and Cross-Claim and Request to Transfer of the Case to the Superior Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction.” (The responsive pleadings; capitalization and boldface omitted.) The responsive pleadings also purported to name as “Counter-Defendant and Cross-Defendants” Honda World Westminster Corporation (Honda World) and Richard Fairbank, CEO of Capital One. Approximately two pages of the responsive pleadings purported to be Shaw’s answer to the complaint. The remainder of the responsive pleadings, comprising some 18 pages, purported to be a “counter- claim and cross-claims.” Honda World was apparently included because it denied Shaw a loan “as a result of Capital One damaging his credit score.” Shaw demanded $10 million from Capital One, $1 million from Honda World, and $5 million from Fairbank. The case was reclassified as unlimited civil on the same date. After meet and confer efforts proved unfruitful, Capital One filed an unopposed motion to strike the purported counter and cross-claims from 2 Shaw’s responsive pleadings on the ground that California law (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.40)1 requires cross-complaints to be a separate document.2 Further, Capital One cited section 431.30, subdivision (c), which states: “Affirmative relief may not be claimed in the answer.” The court held a remote hearing on November 8 at which Shaw did not appear. The court struck Shaw’s responsive pleadings in their entirety. The court further granted Shaw 30 days to serve his responsive pleading. Capital One filed and served a notice of ruling the following day. On December 5, following a case management conference, the minute order stated: “Court notes defendant has 30 days leave to amend his responsive pleading