Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV086266
Mihara, J.
Appellant Wylmina E. Loumena purports to appeal from an order denying summary judgment, granting summary adjudication of her stalking cause of action in her civil action against respondent Timothy P. Loumena, and denying summary adjudication as to her other causes of action against respondent.
An order granting summary adjudication is not an appealable order as it is interlocutory. (Jacobs-Zorne v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App.4th 1064, 1070-1071 (Jacobs-Zorne).) Such an interlocutory order is reviewable on an appeal from a final judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 906; Jacobs-Zorne, at pp. 1070-1071), but the record before us does not reflect that a final judgment has been entered in appellant’s civil action against respondent. At best, the record provided by appellant (an appellant’s appendix and a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on respondent’s motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication) indicates that appellant’s remaining causes of action against respondent were tried to a jury in April 2008, and the jury returned a verdict for respondent. There is no indication whatsoever that a final judgment has ever been entered on that verdict. On this basis, appellant’s purported appeal must be dismissed.
Even if the record demonstrated that a final judgment had been entered on the jury’s verdict, and appellant’s appeal could be construed as being from that final judgment, instead of from the court’s nonappealable interlocutory order, her sole appellate contention would fail because she has failed to provide a record that is adequate to evaluate the merits of her contention.
Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that a judge erred in setting the hearing on respondent’s summary judgment/summary adjudication motion less than 30 days prior to the scheduled trial. A summary judgment or summary adjudication motion “shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a), italics added.) While the record produced by appellant establishes that the motion was set for hearing and heard two weeks prior to the trial date, appellant has failed to produce any record of what was before the judge who set the hearing for that date. Without such a record, we cannot evaluate whether that judge had good cause to set the hearing less than 30 days prior to the trial date. “It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) Because appellant has failed to bear her burden of producing a record that demonstrates that the judge who set the hearing date lacked good cause for setting it less than 30 days before trial, she has failed to establish reversible error.
Disposition
The purported appeal is dismissed as from a nonappealable order.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J., Duffy, J.