Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06AS04002
ROBIE, J.
Plaintiff City of Sacramento (the city) sued defendant Larry Bell (among others) to abate a public nuisance and to appoint a receiver over an apartment building that it alleged was in serious disrepair. The court granted the city’s request for judgment on the pleadings, and Bell brings this pro se judgment roll appeal from the subsequent judgment and permanent injunction entered in favor of the city. Because he has failed to show error, we shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In September 2006, the city brought its “Complaint for Abatement of Public Nuisance and Appointment of Receiver” against Bell and others, alleging that the defendants have an ownership interest in, and are responsible for maintaining, real property in Sacramento on which stands a house and a four-unit apartment building. The complaint alleged that the apartment building is in a serious state of disrepair and that the defendants have disregarded notices from the city that the property violates the Sacramento City Code by virtue of its deteriorating foundation, broken or rotting exterior walls and roof coverings, and faulty wiring (among others). The city sought an injunction ordering defendants to abate the nuisance conditions, an order imposing a receiver over the property, and statutory fines and penalties. Defendants, including Bell, were personally served with the complaint.
In response, Bell filed an “Answer in Opposition to Costs” in which he responded, “I know that the apartments in this action are private property and were shut down unlawfully by the City of Sacramento, causing deterioration and expense to the ‘habitable’ building.” He further asserted that the city “must bear the costs of damages, repair and any upgrades to the property” but “[c]ontrol of the building must remain with Larry Bell.”
The “Answer in Opposition to Costs” is comprised of three paragraphs. It states in its entirety: “Federal laws exist that protect privacy, property, and intellectual property of owner(s). I know that the apartments in this action are private property and were shut down unlawfully by the City of Sacramento, causing deterioration and expense to the ‘habitable’ building. There was no emergency as claimed by the Building Inspector almost two years ago. One resident stayed and stays in the building, forcing the Building Inspector to return the electric and gas meters.
Ten days later, Bell filed an “Opposition To Injunction[;] Opposition To Nominated Receiver, ” in which he asserted that, with the exception of the tub in one apartment, the “building has been and is strong and not dangerous”; he should bear no liability for repairs; the city has made “false and misleading reports of the condition of the building”; and “[n]o receiver can control the building and people in the area.”
The city moved for judgment on the pleadings. Neither a copy of the motion nor the opposition(s) (if any) appear in the record on review. Following a hearing at which Bell appeared (but which was not reported), the court ordered Bell’s answer stricken and granted the city’s motion. Thereafter, the clerk entered Bell’s default.
The court filed its “Judgment and Granting of Permanent Injunction” on December 23, 2008. The judgment recites that the city “has satisfied its evidentiary burden” that defendants so maintained the property in violation of city codes such that it “constitutes a nuisance per se and [a] public nuisance.” The city conducted an inspection in June 2008, provided Bell with an updated list of violations, and gave him two more months to either: (1) hire a licensed contractor to obtain the required permits and perform the work; or (2) obtain all necessary demolition permits and have the apartments demolished. He did neither.
In light of the defendants’ failure to correct the violations or abate the nuisance after multiple opportunities to repair the apartment or demolish it, the court entered judgment against Bell and the other defendants, ordering them to insure the property and not allow it to be occupied so long as the nuisance conditions persist. The judgment also granted the city the right to remove occupants, make the necessary repairs (at the defendants’ expense) or demolish the building. Finally, the judgment allows the city to recover against defendants all costs incurred in attempting to abate the nuisance, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs.
In his opening brief on appeal, Bell indicates the city opted under the judgment to demolish the building.
DISCUSSION
I
Standards Of Review
On appeal, we must presume the trial court’s judgment is correct. (See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, we adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.)
It is the burden of the party challenging a judgment on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) Thus, an appellant must not present just an analysis of the facts and legal authority on each point made; he or she must support arguments with appropriate citations to the material facts in the record. If an appellant fails to do so, the argument is forfeited. (County of Solano v. Vallejo Redevelopment Agency (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1274; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)
Bell is not exempt from the rules governing appeals because he is representing himself in propria persona. A party representing himself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121 [self-represented parties are held to “the same ‘restrictive procedural rules as an attorney’”].)
Because Bell has elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript -- and no transcript or settled statement of the hearing on the city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings -- we must treat this as an appeal “on the judgment roll, ” to which the following rules apply: “‘Error must be affirmatively shown by the record and will not be presumed on appeal [citation]; the validity of the judgment on its face may be determined by looking only to the matters constituting part of the judgment roll [citation]; where no error appears on the face of a judgment roll record, all intendments and presumptions must be in support of the judgment [citation] [citation]; the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to consideration by a reviewing court [citation]; and any condition of facts consistent with the validity of the judgment will be presumed to have existed rather than one which would defeat it [citation].’” (Ford v. State of California (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 507, 514, overruled on other grounds in Duran v. Duran (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 176, 177-179; Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)
In sum, our review of a judgment roll appeal is limited to determining whether any error “appears on the face of the record.” (National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521.)
While this appeal was pending, Bell moved to augment the record to include: (1) “Larry Bell’s Plaintiff Complaint #5SC07601 timely filed in the Small Claims Division of the Superior Court on November 2, 2005”; (2) “Larry Bell’s Plaintiff Complaint refiled in the lead case in the Gordon Shabner [sic] Downtown Court as new number 06AM00223”; (3) Bell’s “Cross-Complaint filed as the Defendant in the same matter under a new case number 06AS04002 on October 22, 2009”; and (4) the “Answers [that] were filed In Pro Per on October 17 and October 25, 2006 and General Denial timely filed....” (Bolding omitted.)
II
Bell Has Failed To Show Reversible Error
Bell contends on appeal that “[t]he default Order and findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record, ” relevant evidence could not have been produced or was improperly excluded, and the list of “un-enumerated violations” was too extensive and “false.” Elsewhere in his brief on appeal, Bell contends the court “made a final summary judgment and default order that is based upon false facts, error, prejudice, discrimination, and is definitely unreasonable. It does not comply with ethics, nor the United States Constitutional requirement of due process of law.”
We construe Bell’s appeal to challenge the entry of default and the court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings.
The record indicates the court entered judgment on the pleadings (Code Civ. Proc., § 438), not summary judgment (id., § 437c).
A
Bell Has Shown No Error In Connection With The Entry Of Default
The city apparently moved to strike Bell’s answer in connection with its motion for judgment on the pleadings. The minute order on the city’s motion states: “The complaint in this action states valid causes of action for public nuisance against defendant. Defendant’s ‘Answer in Opposition to Costs’ filed on October 17, 2007, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint. It fails to allege any properly stated affirmative defense or facts that can be construed as a defense or denial to the claims for abatement of a public nuisance. The allegations are disjointed and conclusory. Even liberally construed, the allegations fail to state any proper defense to the City’s complaint. [¶] The Answer is incapable of a bona fide amendment that could be properly supported by the facts at this late stage in the proceedings. Seeing no possibility of amendment on the eve of trial, no leave to amend is granted. [¶] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Larry Bell’s Answer is stricken.
“[¶]...[¶]
“[P]laintiff is entitled to entry of default against defendants Lionel Bell, Larry Bell and Bonnie Jean Bell pursuant to this order....
“[¶]...[¶]
“Counsel for plaintiff is directed to submit requests for entry of default for Lionel Bell, Larry Bell and Bonnie Jean Bell to the clerk in department 45 along with an amended proposed order and judgment. The clerk shall process and file the requests for entry of default at the... same time as the judgment for permanent injunction.”
Bell’s challenge to the court’s order striking his answer and allowing his default to be taken -- because it was not supported by substantial evidence and/or “is based upon false facts, error, prejudice, [and] discrimination” -- is not cognizable in this judgment roll appeal. As we explained, without a record of what evidence (if any) was admitted in connection with the motion for judgment on the pleadings, we cannot consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings. (Cf. Ford v. State of California, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d at p. 514.) We must, instead, presume that the evidence was properly admitted and legally sufficient. (Ibid.)
Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure section 436 gives the trial court the authority to strike out any pleading, in whole or in part, that fails to conform to the laws of this state, a court rule, or the court’s prior rulings, “at any time in its discretion, and upon any terms it deems proper.” An order striking a pleading is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the burden is on the plaintiff to establish such abuse. (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612.)
Having reviewed Bell’s “Answer in Opposition to Costs” (see fn. 1, ante) we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in concluding the allegations of that pleading are “disjointed and conclusory” and that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the Complaint”; “fails to allege any properly stated affirmative defense or facts that can be construed as a defense or denial to the claims for abatement of a public nuisance”; and, even when liberally construed, “fail[s] to state any proper defense to the City’s complaint.”
B
Bell Has Shown No Error In Connection With The Entry Of Judgment On The Pleadings
We review de novo a trial court’s judgment on an order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515.) “On appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, the court assumes the truth of, and liberally construes, all properly pleaded factual allegations in the complaint. [Citation.] The court may also consider evidence outside of the pleadings that was considered by the trial court without objection [citation], and it may consider matters subject to judicial notice [citation].” (Stone Street Capital, LLC v. California State Lottery Com. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109, 116.)
Like the trial court, then, we accept the allegations of the complaint as true for the purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and give them a liberal construction. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 515-516.)
A nuisance is statutorily defined as anything “injurious to health” or “indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property” that interferes “with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property....” (Civ. Code, § 3479.) “A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.” (Id., § 3480.) Violations of city planning and building codes constitute a public nuisance. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388, 401; Flahive v. City of Dana Point (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 241, 243-245, 248.) Here, the complaint contains and incorporates by reference a list of alleged violations of the Sacramento City Code and photographs showing the serious substandard condition of some elements of the Bell’s property. The complaint further alleges that the defendants were notified and given an opportunity to remedy these deficiencies, and did not. Indeed, the city building code violations continued for years, as city representatives attempted to seek defendants’ cooperation and to have the nuisance conditions corrected and abated. We accept as true, all these allegations concerning the existence of these violations on Bell’s property. Because such violations constitute a public nuisance as a matter of law, the city was entitled to seek their abatement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 731.)
Moreover, after defendants’ answers were stricken, there remained in the record no denials of these allegations. In addition, the minute order on the city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings tells us that, “The record shows that defendant Lionel Bell served a verified response to request for admissions, set one[, ] on September 26, 2007. The admissions conclusively establish the code violations.”
Under these circumstances, Bell has failed to show the trial court erred in entering judgment on the pleadings in this action by the city.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., BUTZ, J.
“The City must bear the costs of damages, repair and any upgrades to the property. Certain payments should be made from the General Fund or other fund of the City, not from rents. Control of the building must remain with Larry Bell, Manager and Owner.
“The related case filed against the City of Sacramento Building Inspector is 06AM00223. This case could be reclassified as unlimited and combined with that case, filed January 12, 2006, for oppression. B.I. reports were false and misleading, causing damages[.] Any receiver named contracting work on the building must seek permission of Larry Bell, or be prepared to take the medicine in time. Attorney’s fees should also be paid by Sacramento.”
We granted Bell’s motion as to the last item only, which proved to be “Answer in Opposition to Costs, ” filed October 17, 2006, and “Opposition To Injunction[;] Opposition To Nominated Receiver, ” filed October 27, 2006.