Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Fresno County No. 07CECG02579, Superior Court. Donald S. Black, Judge.
Charles Schultz, in pro. per., and Kevin Dewall, in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants.
Mitchell, Miller & Ayala and Nathan S. Miller for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Levy, J.
Appellants, Charles Schultz and Kevin Dewall, challenge the entry of a default judgment against them. According to appellants, they were never properly served with the summons and complaint.
As discussed below, nothing in the record on appeal supports appellants’ position. Therefore, the judgment will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The appellate record is minimal. It consists of Schultz’s stricken answer to the complaint, the judgment, the notice of appeal, appellants’ notice designating the record on appeal, and the superior court docket.
From this record it can be discerned that respondent, Wasco Rose, LLC, filed a complaint on August 8, 2007. Respondent personally served Charles Schultz with the summons and complaint on November 6, 2007, and filed the proof of that service with the court on November 30, 2007. Default was entered against Schultz on December 11, 2007. Schultz filed his answer to the complaint on December 12, 2007, but that answer was stricken due to his default having been entered on December 11.
Respondent served the summons and complaint on Kevin Dewall by substituted service on January 17, 2008, and filed the proof of service on February 6, 2008. Upon respondent’s request, default was entered against Dewall on March 6, 2008. The court entered a default judgment in favor of respondent and against Schultz and Dewall on April 1, 2008.
DISCUSSION
Appellants contend that they were not served with the summons and complaint before defaults were entered against them and therefore the judgment must be reversed. However, there is no evidence in the record to support this argument. Rather, the trial court docket reflects that both Schultz and Dewall were served. Appellants have not met their burden to show reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575.)
Appellants also attempt to argue the merits of the case by discussing facts that are outside the appellate record. However, such argument is improper. In reaching a decision, an appellate court is governed by the record. Accordingly, this court will not consider these facts and will disregard the statements of such facts set forth in appellants’ briefs. (Oldenkott v. American Electric, Inc. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 198, 207.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. In the interests of justice, costs are not awarded. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
WE CONCUR: Wiseman, Acting P.J., Gomes, J.