Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC357501, Mark V. Mooney, Judge.
Vickie Welch, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Office of General Counsel, State Bar of California, Marie M. Moffat, Lawrence C. Yee, and Danielle A. Lee for Defendant and Respondent.
EPSTEIN, P. J.
Vickie Welch appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer to her complaint against the State Bar of California without leave to amend. Apparently she had an issue with the State Bar regarding her complaint against an attorney who formerly represented her. The only document in the clerk’s transcript on appeal is the minute order of the trial court’s ruling. It states that the demurrer is sustained “on the grounds stated in open court and as fully reflected in the notes of the court reporter hereby incorporated by reference.” There is no copy of the complaint, the demurrer, or any response filed by Ms. Welch. Ms. Welch did not request preparation of a reporter’s transcript on appeal. On appeal, she filed a request to augment the record, which was denied without prejudice. She did not renew her request to augment the record.
An order sustaining a demurrer is not appealable; appeal lies from an order of dismissal following the order sustaining the demurrer. We shall, however, deem the appeal in this case to be from an order of dismissal. (See Radesky v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 537, 539
Under these circumstances, we are unable to review the merits of the trial court’s ruling. “It is axiomatic it is the appellant’s responsibility to provide an adequate record on appeal. (See Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [to overcome presumption on appeal that an appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, appellant must provide adequate record demonstrating error]; Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 [burden on appellant to provide accurate record on appeal to demonstrate error; failure to do so ‘precludes adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court’s determination’]; see also Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2005) ¶ 4:43, p. 4-10.1 [appellate record inadequate when it ‘appears to show any need for speculation or inference in determining whether error occurred’].)” (Lincoln Fountain Villas Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 999, 1004, fn. 1.)
“Appealed judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) . . . Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against plaintiff. ([Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1281,] 1295-1296.)” (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.)
The general rule is that an appellant appearing 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. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.) Applying the presumption that the trial court’s ruling is correct, we affirm the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. In light of our conclusion, we deny appellant’s motion to amend her reply brief.
DISPOSITION
The order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, J., MANELLA, J.