Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jan A. Pluim, Judge., Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GC040828
Claudio Millan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
John D. Buchanan for Defendant and Respondent.
JACKSON, J.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Claudio Millan appeals from an order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendant Southern California Edison Company without leave to amend. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On demurrer, the facts are those alleged in the operative first amended complaint. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.)
On May 15, 2008, plaintiff filed this action against defendant and its employee, Scott Smith, for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, discrimination based on race or national origin, and promise made without intent to perform. The gravamen of his complaint was that defendant promised him a job upon his graduation from college but reneged on that promise.
Scott Smith was never served and is not a party to this appeal.
Defendant demurred on the grounds the complaint failed to state a cause of action and all causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.
Plaintiff then filed his first amended complaint, setting forth the same causes of action. Defendant again demurred on the ground the causes of action were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Additionally, defendant claimed the first amended complaint failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination. Plaintiff filed no opposition to the demurrer, and the trial court sustained it without leave to amend on the grounds stated in the opposition.
DISCUSSION
The record on appeal designated by plaintiff contains only a case summary, the order of dismissal, a notice of appeal and a designation of record on appeal. It does not contain plaintiff’s complaints, defendant’s demurrers or the trial court’s orders sustaining the demurrers. Plaintiff’s failure to provide us with an adequate record from which we can review the propriety of the trial court’s ruling (Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 476 and fn. 42) requires that his contention that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer be resolved against him. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141; Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.)
Defendant has augmented the appellate record with the documents necessary to resolve the appeal. Even this cannot save plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff’s brief is devoid of references to any of the documents filed in the case, case authority or cogent arguments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a).) He has utterly failed to meet his burden of demonstrating reversible error by an adequate record. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830; Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.)
We acknowledge a self-represented litigant’s understanding of the rules on appeal are, as a practical matter, more limited than an experienced appellate attorney’s. Whenever possible, we do not strictly apply technical rules of procedure in a manner that deprives litigants of a hearing. However, when, as here, the total lack of compliance with the Rules of Court results in our inability to conduct a meaningful review of the trial court’s decision, we cannot ignore the fundamental rules of appellate practice. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Defendant is to recover costs on appeal.
We concur: WOODS, Acting P. J., ZELON, J.