From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sargent v. Ajlouny

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Feb 25, 2011
No. H034762 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)

Opinion


SALLY A. SARGENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EDWARD AJLOUNY, Defendant and Respondent H034762 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District February 25, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV125639

RUSHING, P.J.

Sally A. Sargent appeals a judgment entered following the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint after sustaining respondent Edward Ajlouny’s demurrer without leave to amend.

On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See Hill v. Miller (1966) 64 Cal.2d 757, 759.) And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm. (Kilgore v. Younger (1982) 30 Cal.3d 770, 781; Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636.) The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff. (Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co., supra, at p. 636.)” (Ibid.)

In order to undertake the task of evaluating the sufficiency of the complaint, we must examine it. Here, however, appellant does not provide a copy of the complaint in the record on appeal. As a result, we cannot move beyond our starting presumption that appealed judgments and orders are correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant’s burden to overcome this presumption and affirmatively show error by providing not only argument, but an adequate record establishing the alleged error. When the appellant fails to supply an appellate record sufficient for meaningful review, “the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9; accord, Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296; Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)

Because plaintiff has not met her burden as appellant to demonstrate error, the presumption of correctness remains and the challenged orders must be upheld. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575; Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003; Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.)

The fact that appellant is representing herself does not diminish her burden to establish error appeal. While the law permits a party to act as his or her own attorney, “ ‘such a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[, ] consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro per litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. [Citations.]’ (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) Having failed to provide this court with the necessary factual basis for review, appellant is not entitled to reversal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.


Summaries of

Sargent v. Ajlouny

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Feb 25, 2011
No. H034762 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)
Case details for

Sargent v. Ajlouny

Case Details

Full title:SALLY A. SARGENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EDWARD AJLOUNY, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Feb 25, 2011

Citations

No. H034762 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2011)