From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nghiem v. Cacho

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Aug 2, 2023
No. G061678 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2023)

Opinion

G061678

08-02-2023

SWANNA NGUYEN NGHIEM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JANET CACHO, as Administrator, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

Swanna Nguyen Ngheim, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Murtaugh Treglia Stern &Deily and Devin E. Murtaugh for Defendant and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 30-2020-01138510, Michael J. Strickroth, Judge.

Swanna Nguyen Ngheim, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Murtaugh Treglia Stern &Deily and Devin E. Murtaugh for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

GOETHALS, J.

Swanna Nguyen Ngheim appeals from a judgment disposing of her lawsuit against Janet Cacho, whom Nghiem sued in her capacity as administrator of the estate of Ronald Billing. Unfortunately, that is all we can extract from the appellate record provided to us, which consists solely of the judgment and a notice of appeal. Although the notice of appeal includes a lengthy unsworn factual statement, that statement was not part of the trial court record; we therefore cannot consider it in evaluating whether the court erred.

Ngheim's opening brief contains no legal arguments or assertions of error; instead, it consists almost entirely of a series of unsupported factual assertions that Billing had promised to give her title to his house. With no record before us reflecting what occurred in the court below or what evidence was before the court, Ngheim has demonstrated no ground for reversal of the judgment against her. We consequently affirm.

DISCUSSION

An appeal is an examination of what occurred in the trial court, rather than an independent second chance for the plaintiff to prove his or her case. And on appeal, we are required to start with a presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct. (Denhan v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We cannot reverse a judgment on appeal unless the appellant affirmatively demonstrates that judgment was the product of a legal error committed by the court below, or that it was not sufficiently supported by the evidence considered below.

What this means is that to prevail in this court, appellant must demonstrate that legal errors occurred in the trial court, and then support her arguments with legal authority. (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785.) Nghiem has done neither. Her opening brief includes no details of the proceedings below, nor does it identify any specific rulings that may have been the product of error.

At best, in her opening brief, Nghiem seems concerned about the court's entry of nonsuit because she cites the standard of review to be applied in reviewing an order granting nonsuit. However, the judgment reflects that in addition to entering nonsuits on two of Nghiem's causes of action, the court granted a motion for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 on a third cause of action and that other causes of action were either stricken or voluntarily dismissed by Nghiem. Our record reveals nothing further about any of those events. Nghiem references none of them in her opening brief.

Moreover, "the appellant has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error by providing an adequate record." (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9.) That is particularly significant in a case such as this, where the judgment is based in part on the entry of nonsuit on two of Nghiem's causes of action.

A nonsuit is appropriate only when the plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence, as a matter of law, to prove his or her case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581c, subd. (a); Allgoewer v. City of Tracy (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 755, 761.) Thus, an appellant seeking to overturn a judgment of nonsuit must provide the appellate court with a complete record of all evidence admitted and considered by the lower court, and then explain why that evidence is legally sufficient to prove his or her case.

Our record in this case includes no reporter's transcript documenting any testimony offered below, and the clerk's transcript fails to incorporate any documentary evidence that may have been relied upon by Ngheim in making her case. It is consequently impossible for us to review the nonsuit ruling.

We recognize Nghiem is representing herself on appeal, but her decision to proceed without counsel does not relieve her of the obligation to follow the rules and to affirmatively prove the judgment entered below was the product of error. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543 [self-represented parties must meet same standards as lawyers].) Consequently, because the "[f]ailure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant]," (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502; Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296), we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to her costs on appeal.

WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. DELANEY, J.


Summaries of

Nghiem v. Cacho

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Aug 2, 2023
No. G061678 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2023)
Case details for

Nghiem v. Cacho

Case Details

Full title:SWANNA NGUYEN NGHIEM, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JANET CACHO, as…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

Date published: Aug 2, 2023

Citations

No. G061678 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2023)