Klat v. Evans Tire & Service CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2012-00066050-CU-FR-EC
- Trial judge
- Eddie C. Sturgeon
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court granted a motion for nonsuit and entered judgment for the defendants after the plaintiff, appearing in propria persona, refused to call witnesses or lay a foundation for her exhibits. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a record supporting her claim that the trial court prevented her from testifying.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Granting of motion for nonsuit“The court granted the motion and subsequently entered judgment in Respondents' favor.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the nonsuit because the appellant failed to meet her burden of showing reversible error, as the record (specifically the minute order) contradicted her claim that the trial court barred her from testifying. |
Authorities
- relied: Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786 — In propria persona litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know procedural and court rules.
- relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — The judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct, and all inferences and presumptions are made to support the judgment on matters as to which the record is silent.
- relied: Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564 — An appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record and affirmatively show reversible error.
- relied: Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849 — It is the appellant's duty to support arguments in briefs by references to the record on appeal, including citations to specific pages.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Denham presumption and the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record. The court properly relied on the minute order to refute the appellant's unsupported claim that she was barred from testifying.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter a pro se plaintiff refused to call any witnesses or lay foundation for her exhibits at a bench trial on fraud claims arising from car repairs, the trial court granted defendants' motion for nonsuit and entered judgment for them. The Court of Appeal affirmed because the appellant provided no reporter's transcript and the only record of trial, the minute order, contradicted her claim that she was barred from testifying.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Grant of motion for nonsuit (judgment for defendants) after plaintiff declined to call witnesses or lay foundation for exhibits“That minute order clearly states that Klat refused to call any witnesses to prove her case or establish the admissibility of her exhibits.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court did not articulate a standard for reviewing the nonsuit itself; instead it resolved the appeal on the presumption of correctness and the appellant's failure to furnish an adequate record. Without a reporter's transcript, the minute order controls, and it shows the plaintiff refused to present any admissible evidence, so nonsuit was proper and no error was shown. This is a correct application of Denham, Ballard, and Duarte. |
Alleged refusal to allow plaintiff to serve as both counsel of record and a witness at trial“Finding no support whatsoever in the record for Klat's position that the trial court would not allow her to testify as a witness at trial, we conclude Klat has not shown the trial court erred” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellant bore the burden to affirmatively show error with an adequate record; the only record of trial proceedings (the minute order) affirmatively refuted her account. The court properly presumed the judgment correct on matters where the record is silent. The result is well supported by the authorities cited. |
Authorities
- relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A judgment is presumed correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent.
- relied: Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564 — The appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record and affirmatively demonstrate reversible error.
- relied: Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849 — Appellant must support arguments with citations to specific pages of the record on appeal.
- relied: Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786 — Self-represented litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know procedural rules.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly disposes of the appeal on inadequate-record grounds, applying the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to show error with well-established authority, and the minute order affirmatively contradicted the appellant's factual premise. It does not separately address the substantive standard for nonsuit in a bench trial, but that gap is immaterial because the appellant presented no admissible evidence.
Opinion
Filed 1/27/15 Klat v. Evans Tire & Service CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SUSAN V. KLAT, D065805 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00066050- CU-FR-EC ) EVANS TIRE & SERVICE CENTERS #12 et al., Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eddie C.
Sturgeon, Judge. Affirmed.
Susan V. Klat, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Office of Vatché Chorbajian and Vatché Chorbajian for Defendants and Respondents Evan Tire & Service Centers #12, Evan Tire & Service Centers, Inc., Cynthia Andonian, John K. Andonian, USA Towing & Recovery 2, USA Auto Wrecking, USA Towing & Recovery 2 Auto Sales, Severin Mobile Auto Repair, Severin Mobile Towing, Inc., AAA Mobile Towing, and Asad Gorial Raffo. Manuel Dominguez for Defendant and Respondent Automobile Club of Southern California.
Susan V. Klat appeals a judgment following the superior court's granting of a motion for nonsuit. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Klat filed suit against multiple defendants for fraud based claims arising out repairs made to Klat's car. The defendants included Evans Tire & Service Centers #12, Evans Tire & Service Centers, Inc., Cynthia Andonian, John K. Andonian, USA Towing & Recovery 2, Asad Gorial Raffo, and Severin Mobile Towing, Inc. (collectively Evans Tire Entities). Klat amended her complaint twice, with the operative complaint being the second amended complaint. In addition, to the Evan Tires Entities, this complaint added AAA Mobile Towing (Towing) and the Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA)
(AAA, Towing and Evans Tire Entities collectively Respondents). Like the original complaint, the operative complaint included multiple fraud type causes of action.
After several procedural maneuvers, including Klat filing multiple demurrers to answers filed by Respondents as well as a motion to compel Klat to respond to discovery, the case proceeded to a bench trial. At trial, Klat appeared in propria persona. After the parties gave opening statements, Klat advised the court that she would not call any witnesses, but wanted to submit the case on her exhibits only. The court advised her that to receive the exhibits into evidence, Klat must lay a foundation for them. Klat declined.
The court then advised Klat that if she had no admissible evidence, it might have to 2 dismiss the case. Klat responded that she had another venue in which to address her issues. Klat again refused to call any witnesses.
Respondents moved for a nonsuit. The court granted the motion and subsequently entered judgment in Respondents' favor. Klat timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Klat contends the trial court erred in prohibiting her from being "counsel of record" and a witness at trial. In other words, Klat claims she attempted to offer herself as a witness, but the court refused to allow her to testify. The record, however, does not support Klat's version of events.
Initially, we observe that Klat, as an in propria persona litigant, is "entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know the [procedural and court] rules." (Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.)
On appeal, the judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).) All intendments and presumptions are made to support the judgment on matters as to which the record is silent. (Ibid.)
An appellant has the burden to provide an adequate record and affirmatively show reversible error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; see Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564.) Further, it is the appellant's duty to support arguments in his or her briefs by references to the record on appeal, including citations to specific pages in the record. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 (Duarte).)
3 Here, Klat's entire argument on appeal depends on a version of events that is not supported by the record. She has not provided us with a reporter's transcript of the trial.
The only portion of the record that shows what occurred at trial is the trial court's minute order. That minute order clearly states that Klat refused to call any witnesses to prove her case or establish the admissibility of her exhibits. Finding no support whatsoever in the record for Klat's position that the trial court would not allow her to testify as a witness at trial, we conclude Klat has not shown the trial court erred, and thus, we must affirm the judgment. (See Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564; Duarte, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 856.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on this appeal.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital E020473 · 1999-06-03
- Wantuch v. Davis B079141 · 1995-02-24
- Ballard v. Uribe L.A. 31799 · 1986-04-03
- Denham v. Superior Court L.A. 29704 · 1970-05-06