John

DISCUSSION

Appellant presents the same six arguments on appeal he made in his new trial motion, to wit: (1) the trial court erred under People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez) by allowing Lorch to base his expert opinion on case-specific hearsay; (2) the court awarded respondent excessive and improperly calculated damages; (3) the court’s finding that appellant owed a fiduciary duty to Biorap, together with Lorch’s referring to Biorap as “insolvent” rather than “illiquid,” constituted “irregularities in the proceedings” under Code of Civil Procedure section 657; (4) respondent’s testimony at trial about his knowledge of ENIF’s interrelationship with Biorap “constituted a prejudicial surprise”; (5) new evidence about Biorap’s investments in Crystallex, a Canadian mining company,

3 warranted a new trial; and (6) the evidence was not sufficient to support the court’s fraud finding. We conclude appellant forfeited the first argument (Sanchez error). The record on appeal is not adequate to review the remaining arguments. (Roberson v. City of Rialto (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1507.) Sanchez Error Appellant contends the trial court committed Sanchez error when it allowed…