Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. TS008862, William P. Barry, Judge.
Larry Watkins for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Declues Burkett & Thompson, J. Michael Declues, Cary K. Quan and Gregory A. Wille for Defendant and Respondent.
CROSKEY, J.
In this appeal, plaintiff John E. Watkins (plaintiff) challenges the trial court’s decisions to (1) sustain demurrers to several of his causes of action, (2) deny his petition for writ of administrative mandamus, and (3) grant a summary judgment on his remaining causes of action. The defendant in this case is the Compton Unified School District (defendant). Plaintiff is an employee of the defendant’s school police department. Based on certain actions taken by plaintiff in connection with his duties as a sergeant of the school police department, plaintiff was given a five-day suspension. Thereafter an administrative hearing was held and the hearing examiner concluded the suspension was appropriate. The instant suit was filed prior to the conclusion of the administrative hearing.
Plaintiff has presented this court with an appellate record and briefs which warrant dismissal of his appeal. Although plaintiff challenges the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s demurrer, the appellate record does not contain any of the demurrer papers filed by plaintiff and defendant, does not contain the trial court’s minute order on the demurrer and the attorney order if there is one, and does not even contain the version of the complaint (original, first amended, second amended, etc.) that was the focus of the demurrer ruling challenged by plaintiff.
Likewise, plaintiff did not include in the appellate record some of the papers filed by defendant in support of its motion for summary judgment, nor did plaintiff include the minute order for that motion and the attorney order if there is one. Moreover, despite the fact that “ ‘[t]he function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues,’ ” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381), plaintiff did not include in the appellate record a copy of the operative complaint on which the summary judgment was granted, the fourth amended complaint. Defendant supplemented the record with, among other things, a copy of the operative complaint as well as defendant’s answer to that complaint.
Plaintiff has chosen to present the appellate record in the form of an appellant’s appendix. California Rules of Court, rule 8.124(b)(1) states that a joint appendix or an appellant’s appendix must contain, among other things, the items listed in rule 8.122(b)(3) that are necessary for proper consideration of the appellate issues, and for an appellant’s appendix this includes “any item that the appellant should reasonably assume the respondent will rely on.” The items listed in rule 8.122(b)(3) include, among other things, documents filed or lodged in the superior court and exhibits admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged.” Moreover, rule 8.124(b)(1) further states that a joint appendix or an appellant’s appendix must contain all of the items required by rule 8.122(b)(1), which includes, among other things, the notice of appeal, the judgment or order appealed from and any notice of its entry, and the notice to prepare a reporter’s transcript if one was filed. Additionally, the notice of election to use an appendix for the appellate record must be included in the joint or appellant’s appendix. In addition to not including in his appendix many items that he should reasonably assume defendant would rely on in this appeal, plaintiff also did not include the notice of appeal, the notice of entry of judgment, his election to proceed by appendix, and his notice to prepare reporter’s transcripts.
Although plaintiff challenges the denial of his petition for administrative mandamus relief, his appendix only contains the brief he submitted to the trial court for such relief; it does not contain a copy of defendant’s opposition brief. Moreover, the rules of court regarding transmission of administrative records to the Court of Appeal were not complied with. California Rules of Court, rule 8.124(b)(2), which addresses the use of appendixes as an appellate record, states that an appellant’s, respondent’s or joint appendix must not “[c]ontain the record of an administrative proceeding that was admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged in the trial court. Any such administrative record must be transmitted to the reviewing court as specified in rule 8.123.”
Rule 8.123(c) states that “[i]f the superior court has returned a designated administrative record to a party, the party in possession of the administrative record must deliver it to the superior court clerk within 15 days after the notice designating the record on appeal is served.” Then, pursuant to rule 8.123(d), the superior court clerk transmits the original administrative record to the reviewing court. Rule 8.120(a)(2) likewise advises that “[i]f an appellant intends to raise any issue that requires consideration of the record of an administrative proceeding that was admitted in evidence, refused, or lodged in the superior court, the record on appeal must include that administrative record, transmitted under rule 8.123.” (Italics added.)
Here, the defendant’s appendix contains a copy of plaintiff’s “notice designating record on appeal,” and the notice asks the clerk of the superior court to transmit to this court under rule 8.123 the record of the administrative proceedings that were held over four days in November and December 2005. The superior court has not transmitted the administrative record to this court, and plaintiff has not addressed that situation. What he has done is what rule 8.124 states should not be done—include in his appendix copies of transcripts of four hearings in plaintiff’s personnel matter held in November and December 2005. We observe that the copies lack the certification of a certified shorthand reporter. We also observe that rule 8.124(g) gives this court discretion to impose sanctions on a party who files an appendix which violates that rule.
Plaintiff’s opening and reply briefs also fail to comply with the rules of court. Rule 8.204(a)(2)(C) states that opening briefs must “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record.” Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) states that briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” Of the 12 pages in the statement of facts in plaintiff’s opening brief, three pages have no citations to the record; four have one citation; one has two citations, two have three citations; one has six citations; and one has nine citations. Further, some of the citations are to plaintiff’s separate statement of undisputed material facts rather than to the pages in the appellate record that contain the evidence cited in the separate statement; and one of the citations is to a block of 17 pages of the record rather than to specific pages. Moreover, the remainder of the opening brief contains numerous factual representations that are not supported by citations to the record. Plaintiff’s reply brief suffers from the same failure to comply with the rules of court.
Thus, plaintiff has presented this court with a record and briefs which are not adequate to address the issues he raises, and this warrants dismissal of his appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal taken from the summary judgment is dismissed. Costs on appeal to defendant.
We Concur: KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.