Mueller v. Schneider's Automotive CA2/6

Opinion

Filed 8/26/26 Mueller v. Schneider’s Automotive CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

GERHARD S. MUELLER, 2d Civil No. B350736 (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2023CUPL015308) (Ventura County) v.

SCHNEIDER’S AUTOMOTIVE,

Defendant and Respondent.

We exercise considerable restraint and do not, sua sponte, impose sanctions for this unquestionably frivolous appeal. Respondent claims that the appeal is frivolous but does not seek sanctions. Appellant represents himself and we do not doubt the sincerity of his beliefs that, somehow, the automotive repair work to his vehicle was defective and that he has suffered damages as a result of this defective work. Even though the parties were expressly warned of the adverse consequences that would flow from the absence of a court reporter, the parties elected to proceed without a verbatim record. “The parties opted not to utilize the services of a court reporter . . . .” The judgment shows that the trial court, sitting as trier of fact, determined that appellant “did not prove any of his claims against [Respondent]. The court finds in favor of [Respondent].” This is an “adverse factual finding” and dooms appellant on appeal. (E.g., In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1097.) The judgment is presumed to be correct. (L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 619.) Appellant, nevertheless, recites evidence he says shows that the trial court committed reversible error. These evidentiary claims are forfeited because there is no reporter’s transcript. (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.) This appeal amounts to an impermissible request for us to reweigh the facts and the inferences which can be drawn therefrom. We do not do so. (L.O. v. Kilrain, supra, at p. 619.) We are not “fact finders.” Each of the theories of recovery rest upon factual claims not credited by the trier of fact. Disposition The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J. We concur:

CODY, P. J.

BALTODANO, J.

2 Ronda J. McKaig, Judge Superior Court County of Ventura ______________________________ Gerhard S. Mueller, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Knauss Law Group and Joanne Mirras Knauss, for Defendant and Respondent.