Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-06-456815
OPINION
Marchiano, P.J.
Plaintiff, in propria persona, Janet Stanford appeals from a judgment dismissing her case against defendant Matthew Rothschild.
The record on appeal is limited to the mandatory contents of the clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) The register of actions indicates that the court sustained defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend, and then granted defendant’s application to dismiss after plaintiff failed to amend the complaint. The clerk’s transcript does not include the complaint, the demurrer, the order sustaining the demurrer, or the application for dismissal. Without those documents we have no way to assess the merits of the trial court’s rulings, and must therefore affirm the judgment. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141 [it is the appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record]; Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 [issues are resolved against the appellant if record is inadequate].)
Plaintiff has lodged copies of the demurrer and the application for dismissal with a Civil Case Information Statement in the appeal, and has attached various documents to her briefs, including portions of the complaint. Even if those documents could properly be considered part of the record, no error has been established.
The suit is evidently based on the City and County of San Francisco’s (City) rejection of plaintiff’s job applications. Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation with the City, and defendant, a City attorney, rejected that claim on behalf of the City. Plaintiff is suing defendant for negligence, but no negligence on his part is apparent. Insofar as it appears from the documents before us, the demurrer was correctly sustained.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Stein, J., Margulies, J.