Opinion
H050244
12-26-2023
DOROTA H. MANOLAK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROLAND BEESON, et al., Defendants and Respondents
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 19CV004993
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852-855.)
GREENWOOD, P.J.
Dorota Manolak, representing herself, appeals from a judgment entered following a jury trial. Manolak sued respondent Roland Beeson dba Calogos Corporation for negligence arising from an accident on Beeson's property. The jury found that Beeson was not negligent in the use or maintenance of the property, and the trial court entered judgment in Beeson's favor. Because Manolak has not provided an adequate record on appeal, nor an opening brief that enables meaningful appellate review, we affirm.
Appellant's notice of appeal lists her first name as "Dorota." Records from the trial court, including the clerk's notice of appeal and the reporter's transcript, spell appellant's name, "Dorata." For purposes of this opinion, we use the spelling of appellant's name as listed in her notice of appeal.
Manolak filed a notice of appeal on July 21, 2022. On October 4, 2022, Manolak filed her notice designating the record on appeal, initially electing to proceed with the clerk's transcript. On November 28, 2022, Manolak filed an amended designation, electing to proceed with an appendix and a reporter's transcript pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.124. Pursuant to rule 8.124(e)(2), Manolak was required to file her appendix with her opening brief. On March 24, 2023, Manolak filed her opening brief, however, she failed to file an appendix. As a result, the only records before this court on appeal are the reporter's transcripts from a status conference in which dates for motions and the trial were set, and from the last day of trial, in which jury instructions were given, closing arguments made, and a verdict rendered.
Subsequent undesignated references to rules of court are to the California Rules of Court.
Beeson failed to file a timely respondent's brief. On May 23, 2023, pursuant to rule 8.220(a), this court sent Beeson a notice of default advising him that if the respondent's brief is not filed withing fifteen (15) days, the appeal may be submitted based on the record on appeal and appellant's brief. Beeson did not file a respondent's brief after the rule 8.220 notice and did not designate a record on appeal. Accordingly, we decide the appeal based on the reporter's transcripts designated by Manolak and Manolak's opening brief.
On July 20, 2023, Beeson filed a request to extend the time to file its brief in this appeal. This court denied Beeson's request.
On appeal, Manolak alleges that, prior to trial, the trial judge precluded her from introducing evidence related to her injuries, referring to the insurer's defense of the action, and calling certain witnesses.
We are required to presume that the order on appeal is correct. The appellant bears the burden of affirmatively showing an error based on the record presented to the trial court. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) It is the appellant's burden to provide this court with an adequate record on appeal. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 72.) The "record on an appeal in a civil case" must contain a "record of the written documents from the superior court proceedings." (Rule 8.120(a)(1).) The record can be provided in several ways, including a clerk's transcript, an appendix, or an agreed upon statement. (Ibid.) When the appellant elects to provide an appendix in lieu of the clerk's transcript, the appendix-in form and content-must comply with rule 8.124. (Rule 8.124(b)(1)(A)-(D), (b)(3)(A)-(D), (d)(1)-(3).) The appendix must include any document filed or lodged with the superior court "that is necessary for proper consideration of the issues ...." (Rule 8.124(b)(1)(B).)
Manolak has not provided to this court, amongst other things, any documents related to any motions, hearings, trial proceedings or orders pertaining to what evidence the trial court precluded Manolak from introducing at trial, if any. Manolak has the burden of providing an adequate record for review, and the failure to do so requires this court to resolve the issue against her. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609.)
Manolak's opening brief also does not comply with the rules that make it possible for us to effectively review her case. The appellant's opening brief must provide a summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record, include record citations in support of factual assertions, identify the relief sought, and explain why the order appealed from is appealable. (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C).) The appellant must also include in the brief argument and legal authority to support their contentions. (See rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) "This burden requires more than a mere assertion that the judgment is wrong. 'Issues do not have a life of their own: If they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, [they are] . . . waived.' [Citation.] . . . It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness. When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. [Citation.]" (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.)
Manolak's brief does not follow these briefing rules, as she makes unsupported factual assertions and does not cite any legal authority. These limitations make it impossible for us to determine the nature of any alleged error, particularly given the deferential standard of review that this court must apply.
The trial court's admission or exclusion of evidence is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal.5th 905, 931; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717.)" 'A trial court's exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence is reviewable for abuse [citation] and will not be disturbed except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.'" (Christ v. Schwartz (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 440, 446-447, quoting People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 910.)
Even if we assume Manolak's allegations that the trial court excluded certain evidence before trial, Manolak has not explained how such rulings by the trial court were arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd, or resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice. As a result, we are required to presume that the evidentiary orders are correct. This presumption is" 'not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.'" (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609, quoting Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)
We are mindful of the fact that Manolak is self-represented, but we may not exempt her from compliance with the general rules set forth above. We must treat a party who acts as her own attorney like any other party and hold her to the rules of procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 [failure by self-represented litigant to cite to record and support contentions with appropriate discussion waives claims of insufficiency of the evidence].) Although we may exercise our discretion to construe a self-represented litigant's brief liberally in an effort to determine the nature of her arguments, here Manolak has not provided us with a record or a brief that makes meaningful review possible.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, no costs are awarded because Beeson did not file a respondent's brief. (Rule 8.278(a)(5).)
WE CONCUR: Grover, J., Lie, J.