Hensley v. Hensley CA2/3

Opinion

Filed 8/18/26 Hensley v. Hensley CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

JAMES HENSLEY, B344259

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19VEFL00494) v.

MIDORI HENSLEY,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marilyn K. Mordetzky, Judge. Affirmed. James Hensley, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Midori Hensley, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ James Hensley (James) appeals from a December 5, 2024 order granting a motion to compel filed by his former spouse, Midori Hensley (Midori), and awarding Midori sanctions of $6,750. We affirm. BACKGROUND James filed a marriage dissolution petition in April 2019. In June 2024,1 Midori filed a motion to compel production of documents. The hearing on the motion apparently was continued several times. On December 5, the trial court granted the motion to compel and ordered James to pay $6,750 “in attorney fees in the form of sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320.” James timely appealed from the December 5 order. DISCUSSION James challenges the December 5 order on a variety of grounds. Among other things, he contends that the parties did not stipulate to Commissioner Mordetzky sitting as judge pro tem; the trial court abused its discretion by granting Midori’s motion to compel; notice of the December 5 hearing was not proper; the record did not support the sanctions award; and the sanctions violated James’s state and federal constitutional rights. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment [or order] 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 [or order]. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of 1 All subsequent date references are to 2024.

2 appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] . . . ‘ “[I]f the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ [Citation.] ‘Consequently, [the appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant].’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) An adequate appellate record must include “all of the documents or other evidence considered by the trial court” in connection with the matter appealed. (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 434, fn. 9; see also Oliveira v. Kiesler (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1363 [rejecting substantial evidence challenge where appellant failed to provide a record of all the evidence submitted in the trial court]; California Rules of Court, rule 8.120(a)(1) [record on appeal in civil case must contain “[a] record of the written documents from the superior court proceedings”].) In the present case, the clerk’s transcript James designated includes his responsive declaration opposing Midori’s motion to compel and his motion to reconsider, but omits Midori’s motion to compel and request for sanctions. It also omits the declarations and supporting documents Midori filed in support of her motion. In short, James has not provided us with any of the evidence on which the trial court relied in granting the motion to compel and awarding sanctions. We reach the same conclusion with regard to James’s contention that the December 5 order is void because he did not stipulate to having Midori’s motion heard by Commissioner 3 Mordetzky. Code of Civil Procedure section 259, subdivision (d) enumerates the powers and duties of a court commissioner, which include the power to act as a temporary judge. California Rules of Court, rule 2.816 (Rule 2.816) governs stipulations for matters to be heard by temporary judges. It requires the trial court to give notice before the commencement of the proceeding—either by a conspicuous sign posted inside or just outside the courtroom, accompanied by oral notification, or by written notice—that a temporary judge will be hearing the matters for that calendar. (Rule 2.816(b), (c).) Once the trial court provides the requisite notice, a party will be “deemed to have stipulated to the attorney serving as a temporary judge if the party fails to object to the matter being heard by the temporary judge before the temporary judge begins the proceeding.” (Rule 2.816(d); see also Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 575 [stipulations that matter may be heard by a commissioner “will be implied if the hearing involves the performance of a judicial function and the party affirmatively participates in the proceeding and does not object to the commissioner who conducts the proceeding until after its completion”].) To withdraw a stipulation for the appointment of a temporary judge, a party must file an application or motion to withdraw the stipulation, which “must be supported by a declaration of facts establishing good cause for permitting the party to withdraw the stipulation.” (Rule 2.816(e).) Nothing in the appellate record suggests either that James objected to appearing before Commissioner Mordetzky before she began the proceeding, or that he filed an application to withdraw the stipulation. For the foregoing reasons, we necessarily resolve James’s challenge to the December 5 order against him. (Hernandez v. 4 California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.) [“Without respondent’s motion to strike, plaintiff’s opposition, and the court’s order, we cannot review the basis of the court’s decision. Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden on this ruling”].) DISPOSITION The December 5, 2024 order is affirmed. Midori Hensley is awarded her appellate costs.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ASHWORTH, J.* We concur:

ADAMS, Acting P. J. HANASONO, J.

* Retired Judge of the El Dorado County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.