Opinion
B209949
6-10-2009
LYDIA KLINE, et al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LIFESOURCE WATER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent. B209947
Lydia Kline, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Felix Stansfield, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Carlsen Law Corporation and Miles Carlsen for Defendant and Respondent.
Not to be published in Official Reports
Plaintiffs and appellants Lydia Kline and Felix Stansfield appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent Lifesource Water System, on appellants complaints, after respondents demurrers to appellants second amended complaints were sustained without leave to amend. We consolidated their appeals.
Appellants complaints included numerous causes of action. On appeal, they contend that they stated a cause of action for, at least, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Respondent argues that the judgment must be affirmed because appellants have failed to show grounds for reversal. We agree.
Kline has provided us with a record which consists of her complaint (dated January 14, 2008), first amended complaint (dated March 10, 2008), and second amended complaint (dated May 19, 2008), the exhibits to those complaints, what appears to be the trial courts bench memorandum (dated July 22, 2008) on the demurrer to the second amended complaint, the judgment (dated August 4, 2008), notice of entry of judgment, and respondents memorandum of costs.
Stansfield has provided us with a record which consists of his complaint (dated January 14, 2008), first amended complaint (dated March 10, 2008), and second amended complaint (dated May 19, 2008), the exhibits to those complaints, and a minute order dated July 25, 2008, which recites "demurrer of Lifesource Water Systems to second amended complaint is sustained without leave to amend for reasons stated in moving papers."
In addition, each appellant has provided us with reporters transcripts for hearings on May 7, 2008, and July 22, 2008.
The May 7, 2008 hearing seems to have been on respondents first demurrer. At the hearing, the court found that appellants papers were confusing and that more specificity was required to give respondent notice of the claims. The court allowed each appellant 15 days to amend.
The July 22, 2008 hearing was on respondents second demurrers. The court heard argument and took the matter under submission.
An appellant "must affirmatively demonstrate error by an adequate record. In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial courts action will be made by the appellate court. "[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented. (Buckhart v. San Francisco Residential Rent etc., Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1036, internal quotation marks omitted; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 418.)" (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.)
Without respondents demurrers and appellants oppositions, we cannot review the basis of the courts decision. The bench memorandum concerning the demurrer to Klines second amended complaint indicates that there were problems with the timeliness of the filing of her Department of Fair Employment and Housing complaint (Gov. Code, § 12960), and points out that she failed to allege that she had a written or an implied contract not to terminate without good cause, and that her complaint differs from her administrative complaint. Some of all of these problems may have formed the basis for respondents demurrer, and the trial courts action. The same may be true about Stansfields complaint. We cannot tell, and thus we cannot find error.
"Appealed judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Consequently, plaintiff has the burden of providing an adequate record. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against plaintiff. (Id. at pp. 1295-1296.)" (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.) Appellants have failed to carry their burden on appeal.
Disposition
The judgments are affirmed. Respondent to recover costs on appeal.
We concur:
TURNER, P. J.
KREIGLER, J.