Opinion
G058587
02-22-2021
QIUYUE JIAO, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SHUO JIA, Defendant and Respondent.
Law Offices of C. Stephanie Chen and C. Stephanie Chen for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Law Offices of Steven L. Sugars and Steven L. Sugars for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00941493) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Affirmed. Request for judicial notice. Denied. Law Offices of C. Stephanie Chen and C. Stephanie Chen for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Law Offices of Steven L. Sugars and Steven L. Sugars for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiffs Qiuyue Jiao (Jiao)and Xiang Ji (Ji) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Shuo Jia after a court trial on their causes of action for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, which stemmed from a physical altercation with defendant. Plaintiffs contend no substantial evidence exists in the record to support the trial court's finding for defendant. But in the absence of a reporter's transcript, agreed or settled statement, or other record of the testimony at trial, we cannot evaluate plaintiffs' contentions. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
Plaintiffs sued defendant under the name Lele Ashlock, which is apparently an alias for Shuo Jia. --------
FACTS
Jiao and a nonparty Jin Jin (Jin) were business partners in a massage spa in Laguna Niguel. Ji is Jiao's son, while defendant is Jin's daughter. As a result of certain business disputes, a fight occurred between plaintiffs, defendant, and defendant's parents, Jin and nonparty Harry Ashlock. Ji was injured and transported to the hospital.
After a court trial, the court took the matter under submission and later issued a minute order setting forth its decision. The trial court described conflicting testimony and ambiguous physical evidence, and resolved credibility questions in favor of defendant. Accordingly, the trial court found plaintiffs had not proved their causes of action by a preponderance of the evidence.
Plaintiffs timely appealed. On appeal, plaintiffs expressly chose to proceed without a record of the oral proceedings at trial.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs challenge the trial court's finding they did not prove their claims. Plaintiffs argue the trial court misunderstood the photographs of Ji's injuries, erroneously characterized one witness's testimony as "ambiguous," and mistakenly credited defendant's testimony instead of plaintiffs' and their witnesses' testimony.
Plaintiffs also contend the trial court failed to consider or rule upon plaintiffs' causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
"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. [Citation.] The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter's transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence." (In re Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992.)
In the absence of a reporter's transcript or an agreed or settled statement, we have no way of knowing what testimony was given at trial. The only accounts we have of the testimony are the very general summary of the trial court in its minute order ruling and the written closing arguments, none of which provide a sufficient basis for substantial evidence review. Thus, plaintiffs' arguments regarding the photographs, the characterization of certain testimony as "ambiguous," and the credibility issues cannot be considered. And in any event, we do not reweigh credibility determinations on substantial evidence review. (San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1142.)
Plaintiffs' argument regarding their causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress also fails. Plaintiffs' own complaint describes plaintiffs' emotional distress as arising from the physical attack on plaintiffs. The trial court found plaintiffs failed to prove defendant committed the attack. Thus, the trial court found plaintiffs failed to prove defendant caused plaintiffs' emotional distress. It makes no difference that the trial court did not specifically set forth this straightforward conclusion in its minute order.
Because we do not reach plaintiffs' substantive arguments concerning the facts, we deny defendant's request that we take judicial notice of our prior decision on the related business disputes between plaintiffs and nonparties Jin and Harry Ashlock.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Defendant shall recover costs on appeal.
THOMPSON, J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, ACTING P. J. FYBEL, J.