gno.law

Baize v. Superior Court CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067884 · 2016-01-05 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2015-00011090-CU-HR-CTL
Trial judge
Tamila E. Ipema
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
McINTYRE (author), Judith D. McConnell, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:01Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Baize's second application for a civil harassment restraining order, asserting that the matter was res judicata because the court had already denied her request based on the same facts the previous day. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, concluding that Baize forfeited her claims due to an inadequate record (lack of transcript) and deficient briefing, rather than reaching the merits of the res judicata argument.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Denial of the second application for a civil harassment restraining order based on res judicata.
“The Court has already ruled on this case on 4-1-2015 (yesterday). This case is res judicata which means it was dismissed with prejudice after the judge heard all the facts.”
de novonot reachedunsure
The appellate court did not evaluate the trial court's application of res judicata because it found the appeal procedurally defective. The court determined that Baize failed to provide a reporter's transcript and filed a deficient brief, resulting in a forfeiture of her arguments. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the order based on procedural default rather than a substantive review of the trial court's legal conclusion.

Authorities

  • relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown.
  • relied: Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412 — If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.
  • relied: Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 — An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties.
  • relied: First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956 — A party proceeding in propria persona is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in applying the well-established principle that an appellant must provide a sufficient record and develop arguments to survive appeal. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' analysis because it completely avoids the substantive legal question of whether a denial of a civil harassment restraining order constitutes a final judgment subject to res judicata, which is a significant legal issue in this context.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court denied Debbie Baize's second application for a civil harassment restraining order against her apartment manager and his son, reasoning that its denial of an identical application the day before made the matter res judicata. On Baize's pro se appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed without reaching the res judicata rationale, holding that the absence of a reporter's transcript and the near-unintelligible opening brief left Baize unable to overcome the presumption of correctness and forfeited any cognizable contention.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Denial of Baize's second request for a civil harassment restraining order on res judicata grounds (second order, filed April 2, 2015)
“[t]he Court has already ruled on this case on 4-1-2015 (yesterday). This case is res judicata which means it was dismissed with prejudice after the judge heard all the facts.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The appellate court never evaluated whether res judicata properly applies to a denied civil harassment petition; it affirmed because Baize supplied no reporter's transcript and no coherent argument, triggering the Denham/Fain presumption of correctness and forfeiture under Paterno and Stanley. Those authorities squarely support affirmance on this record, so the result is defensible even though the trial court's stated rationale was never tested on its merits.
First denial of Baize's request for a restraining order (April 1, 2015), to the extent her arguments were construed as attacking that order
“Baize did not appeal from the first order denying her request for a restraining order. However, even if we construe Baize's notice of appeal as identifying the first order denying her request for a restraining order, her appeal fails as she has not shown error.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The court liberally construed the notice of appeal under Luz v. Lopes and D'Avola, then held that without a transcript the unreported proceedings are conclusively presumed to show no error (Estate of Fain; Mears). This is a correct application of settled appellate-record rules, and nothing in the clerk's record shows error on its face as to the first denial.

Authorities

  • relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A lower court judgment or order is presumed correct; all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters where the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.
  • relied: Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412 — If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the trial court's decision should be affirmed.
  • relied: Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973 — Where no reporter's transcript is provided and no error appears on the face of the record, the judgment is conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters.
  • relied: Mears v. Mears (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 408 — In the absence of a reporter's transcript, all presumptions and inferences are drawn in support of the trial court's decision.
  • relied: Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54 — Notices of appeal are liberally construed to protect the right of appeal where it is reasonably clear what the appellant intended to appeal and respondent is not misled or prejudiced.
  • relied: D'Avola v. Anderson (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 358 — Notices of appeal are liberally construed in favor of their sufficiency.
  • relied: Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 35 — Without a sufficient notice of appeal there is no appellate jurisdiction.
  • relied: Beets v. Chart (1889) 79 Cal. 185 — A sufficient notice of appeal is a prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction.
  • relied: Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 — An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims or to make arguments for the parties.
  • relied: People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764 — The appellate court's role is to evaluate legal argument supported by citation of authority; points not so supported may be treated as waived.
  • relied: First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956 — A self-represented litigant is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and is held to the same rules of procedure.
  • relied: Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117 — In propria persona litigants are held to the same restrictive procedural rules as attorneys.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied settled rules on the presumption of correctness, inadequate records, and deficient briefing, and those rules independently support affirmance given Baize's one-page outline and lack of any transcript. It did not, however, examine whether the trial court's res judicata rationale, which appears on the face of the clerk's record, was legally sound for a civil harassment petition denied only a day earlier, instead presuming the first hearing was a full adjudication on the merits.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/5/16 Baize v. Superior Court 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

DEBBIE BAIZE, D067884

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2015-00011090- CU-HR-CTL) SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Tamila E.

Ipema, Judge. Affirmed.

Debbie Baize, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

Debbie Baize sought a civil harassment restraining order against her apartment manager, Johnson Numan, and his 12-year-old son, Tanner Numan. The trial court denied the restraining order because it had denied Baize's application for a restraining order based on the same facts the day before. Baize appeals, in propria persona, from the trial court's second order denying her request for a restraining order. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 1, 2015, Baize requested a restraining order against the Numans, which the trial court denied. The next day, Baize again sought a restraining order against the Numans. Baize alleged that Johnson made her feel uncomfortable by asking questions regarding her daily plans, Tanner once followed her to a store and told Johnson lies about Baize, Johnson paid another tenant to attack Baize, and Johnson attacked her while she was on her way to the restroom. Baize stated that as a result of the harassment, she feared for her life.

In her second application for a restraining order, Baize noted that Johnson had obtained a temporary restraining order against her. She further noted that the trial court had denied her request for a restraining order against the Numans a day earlier. Baize explained that she "was not able to say everything [she] wanted to say at the hearing yesterday, that is why I am now applying for another restraining order today."

The trial court denied Baize's second restraining order request, stating "[t]he Court has already ruled on this case on 4-1-2015 (yesterday). This case is res judicata which means it was dismissed with prejudice after the judge heard all the facts. [Baize] cannot bring another complaint based on the same facts. If there are any future incidents, [Baize] may return and file another request."

DISCUSSION

I. Notice of Appeal To be sufficient, the notice of appeal must "identif[y] the particular judgment or order being appealed." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) Notices of appeal are 2 liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what appellant was trying to appeal from and so long as the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced. (Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54, 59; D'Avola v. Anderson (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 358, 361.) In the absence of a sufficient notice of appeal, there is no appellate jurisdiction. (See Beets v. Chart (1889) 79 Cal. 185; Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 35, 47.)

Here, Baize makes largely indiscernible arguments regarding testimony presented and proceedings in the trial court. It is unclear whether that testimony and those proceedings were in conjunction with Baize's first or second request for a restraining order; however, we presume Baize's arguments relate to the first proceeding as they concern issues other than the trial court's res judicata finding. Baize did not appeal from the first order denying her request for a restraining order. However, even if we construe Baize's notice of appeal as identifying the first order denying her request for a restraining order, her appeal fails as she has not shown error.

II. Baize Failed to Meet Her Burden to Show Error "[I]t is settled that: '[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct.

All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) " 'A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults 3 and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.' " (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)

Baize did not provide us with a reporter's transcript of any proceedings in the trial court. In the absence of a reporter's transcript, all presumptions and inferences must be drawn in support of the trial court's decision. (Mears v. Mears (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 408, 413; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 ["Where no reporter's transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error" (italics omitted)].) Accordingly, Baize failed to meet her burden to show error.

III. Adequacy of Baize's Brief Baize filed an opening brief consisting of a short one-page outline of her arguments, which are nearly impossible to ascertain, followed by several pages which appear to be photocopies of pages from various treatises. Baize did not elaborate on her arguments or cite to facts or authority supporting her arguments. (See California Rules of Court, Rule 8.204(a).) Based on Baize's brief and the record before us, we are unable to discern or evaluate her arguments. (See Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 ["An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties."]; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [appellate court's role is to evaluate legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made].)

4 Baize's deficient briefing, combined with the inadequate record, compel us to conclude she has forfeited any cognizable appellate contentions. In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful that Baize represents herself on appeal. However, her status as a party appearing in propria persona does not provide a basis for preferential consideration. "A party proceeding in propria persona 'is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[,] consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' [Citation.] Indeed, ' "the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney." ' " (First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1; Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121.)

DISPOSTION

The order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded costs on appeal.

McINTYRE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus