Shobe v. Brown CA2/4

Opinion

Filed 8/18/26 Shobe v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

KIMBERLY SHOBE et al., B343224 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STCV04347) v.

DELORES BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard L. Fruin, Judge. Affirmed. Delores Brown, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. WDA, Joshua C. Greer, Whitney D. Ackerman and Duncan McGee Nefcy for Plaintiffs and Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Appellant Delores Brown challenges the trial court’s entry of judgment against her after a jury trial, on the grounds that the trial court failed to properly apply the doctrine of unclean hands and the verdict was unsupported by the evidence. We find the record inadequate for proper review, and therefore affirm. Respondents Kimberly Shobe and Edwynn Shobe rented a house from Brown. The Shobes sued Brown on various claims related to their tenancy, and Brown cross-complained against the Shobes for breach of the lease agreement. The record on appeal consists of the rental agreement, the trial court’s register of actions, a reporter’s transcript covering three of five trial days, the resulting judgment, notice of entry of judgment, and notice of appeal. The judgment reflects jury findings in favor of the Shobes on both the complaint and cross-complaint, and an award of $67,520 in compensatory damages, plus $10,000 in punitive damages. A trial court judgment is presumed correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error. (Id. at p. 609.) Therefore, if the record is inadequate for review of the issues raised, the decision of the trial court must be affirmed. (Ibid.) As the Shobes argue, that is the case here. Brown urges three claims of error: (1) that the trial court should have entered JNOV in her favor on the affirmative defense of unclean hands, (2) that the trial court permitted an award of punitive damages in the 1 We resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) As discussed below, there are serious deficiencies in the record and our opinion is unpublished. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)

2 absence of supporting evidence at trial, and (3) that the trial court should have entered JNOV in her favor on its own motion. These claims cannot be properly evaluated based on the record presented. Neither the complaint nor the cross-complaint nor any answer nor any court orders are included in the clerk’s transcript, and the reporter’s transcript contains no mention of the phrase “unclean hands.” We cannot determine if the defense of unclean hands was ever pled, raised, or ruled on, much less what the ruling was, might, or should have been. Likewise, Brown’s arguments that the punitive damages award was unsupported, and that JNOV should have been granted in her favor on the court’s own motion, present a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Therefore, as she concedes, we review for substantial evidence. (TRC Operating Co., Inc. v. Chevron USA, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1102.) We cannot do this when a significant portion of the evidence is missing. The trial began on Thursday, September 12, 2024, and concluded with a verdict on Wednesday, September 18, 2024. Except for a few minutes of testimony from one witness on the afternoon of Thursday the 12th, all the evidence was presented on Friday the 13th and Monday the 16th. But the reporter’s transcript skips Friday the 13th and concludes with Tuesday the 17th. Nor are any of the court’s minute orders included in the record. It is clear from the transcript that the trial was in session and testimony was taken on Friday the 13th, and the jury was still deliberating at the end of the day on Tuesday the 17th. Therefore, as much as half the evidentiary presentation and half the deliberations period is missing. Without the evidence submitted on Friday the 13th, or any inkling of what happened on Wednesday the 18th other than the entry of a verdict, we cannot review this judgment.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS ZUKIN, P. J.

We concur:

MORI, J.

TAMZARIAN, J.