Opinion
B231812
01-31-2012
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAMELA FLAX, Defendant and Appellant.
Pamela Flax, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Hunt & Henriques and Anthony Dipiero for Plaintiff 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC107513)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John L. Segal, Judge. Affirmed.
Pamela Flax, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Hunt & Henriques and Anthony Dipiero for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Pamela Flax (Flax) had a credit card with plaintiff and respondent Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (Citibank). When Flax allegedly failed to pay the total amount owed on her account, Citibank filed this credit card debt collection action against her. Following a court trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Citibank. Flax appeals claiming that her due process rights were violated during the course of the trial.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Flax had a credit card with Citibank. At some point, her account became delinquent, prompting Citibank to file a complaint against Flax. The complaint alleged causes of action for common counts and sought $40,211.62 in damages.
Flax answered the complaint.
On January 24, 2011, the matter proceeded to a court trial. Judy Delage (Delage) testified as the custodian of records for Citibank. She stated that Flax made charges on her account and, while she did make some payments, there was still a balance due and owing in the amount of $40,211.62. Flax did not object to Delage's testimony.
Flax also testified. She stated that she did not believe that she owed the monies because the debt had "been sold off to another attorney's firm." She also indicated that she was paying medical bills and that Citibank was not willing to work with her at that time.
Citibank recalled Delage, who stated that the debt was still owned by Citibank. Again, Flax did not object to Delage's testimony.
Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court found that Citibank had proven its case by a preponderance of the evidence and entered judgment in favor of Citibank in the amount of $40,211.62 plus costs.
Flax's timely appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
Flax argues that the judgment must be reversed because her due process rights were violated during the court trial. Setting aside the obvious procedural issue that Flax raised no objections at trial, we reach the merits of Flax's contentions, rejecting each in turn.
First, Flax points to the fact that she was not represented by counsel, but Citibank was. "[T]he right to represent oneself in civil proceedings conducted in this state, though established by precedent rather than statute, is firmly embedded in California jurisprudence." (Baba v. Board of Supervisors (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 504, 526.) And, "mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment." (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984.) In light of these principles, and the fact that Flax failed to explain how her self-representation was prejudicial (Cal. Const., art. 6, § 13), Flax's self-representation does not provide grounds for reversal.
Second, Flax asserts that the trial court erred in not questioning Citibank's case in chief. In other words, she argues that it was the trial court's burden—and not hers—to challenge Citibank's evidence and determine whether defenses not pled or otherwise raised by Flax applied. Not surprisingly, Flax offers no legal authority to support her position. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) After all, it is well-established that the parties bear their respective burdens in litigation. (See, e.g., Platzer v. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1260 [burden is upon the party seeking to exclude evidence to object]; Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error].) And Flax did not meet her burden.
Finally, to the extent Flax seeks a ruling on her "procedural recommendations" to trial courts adjudicating consumer debt litigation, we decline to do so. We do not issue advisory opinions. (Ebensteiner Co., Inc. v. Chadmar Group (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178 -1179.) To the extent a change in the rules of civil procedure are necessary, we reserve that issue for the Legislature.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Citibank is entitled to costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
_________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST
We concur:
________, Acting P. J.
DOI TODD
_________, J.
CHAVEZ