Filed 7/7/17 Lelito v. Mauritz CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



LILLIAN M. LELITO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

JAMES MAURITZ,

Defendant and Respondent.
D070354



(Super. Ct. No. 37-2016-00009953- CU-HR-NC)


APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S. Whitney, Judge. Affirmed.
Lillian M. Lelito, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Office of Eric G. Anderson, Kenneth A. Rutan and Daniel Y. Chang for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION
Lillian M. Lelito challenges an order denying her request for a permanent restraining order against her neighbor James Mauritz. She contends the trial court violated her constitutional rights to petition and to a fair trial by failing to permit her to present evidence or argument at the hearing. However, Lelito failed to provide an adequate record on appeal. Because her failure to do so precludes appellate review, we affirm the order. (Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 ["It is the burden of appellant to provide an accurate record on appeal to demonstrate error. Failure to do so precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court's determination"].)
BACKGROUND
Lelito sought a restraining order against Mauritz, who resides in her neighborhood, saying he was harassing her. She alleged Mauritz walked onto her patio deck with two other men while she was inside watching television. She said, as an elderly woman, she was intimidated by their presence because she was not expecting them. She also alleged Mauritz "constantly" stalked her home by driving a golf cart up and down the block several times a day, parking and staring at her home, and entering her property without notice. She alleged he "bullied and intimidated my family by contacting local sheriff and reporting false information." She alleged he would not allow her daughter to represent her at homeowners association (association) meetings and he locked the gates to the laundry facilities. She requested an immediate restraining order saying she was afraid Mauritz would attempt to retaliate and he exhibited aggressive and intimidating behavior in the past. The court issued a temporary restraining order and set the matter for hearing.
Mauritz responded by saying he is the maintenance director of the association and is responsible for coordinating repairs and upkeep of the association's property. He stated he is also a member of the association's board of directors.
He admitted he was on Lelito's deck with two men from a plumbing company to resolve an issue regarding a gas shutoff valve, access to which was impeded by Lelito's deck. Mauritz stated he knocked on the door when they arrived and, when there was no answer, they completed their work and left within a few minutes. Mauritz later submitted additional declarations from the plumbing company employees who went to Lelito's home to address the gas shutoff valve stating they were on the property for less than five minutes.
Mauritz stated he drives up and down Lelito's street and other streets in the neighborhood on the association's golf cart as part of his duties. He stated he was on her street more often recently because he was monitoring a complaint she made about a neighbor's dog. He denied sitting and staring at her property. He stated the association board called the sheriff about Lelito's daughter when she tried to attend a board meeting because only members are allowed to attend. He stated he locked the association's pool area, which includes the clubhouse and laundry facilities, in accordance with posted times.
Mauritz provided declarations from employees and board members of the association in support of Mauritz, attesting to the ongoing issues related to the gas shutoff valve, Mauritz's work for the association, and his character.
The first hearing on the restraining order was continued when Lelito's daughter appeared in court stating her mother had been taken to the hospital by ambulance that morning. The court denied a request by Mauritz's attorney to dismiss the matter and continued the hearing.
On the day set for the continued hearing, Lelito appeared along with her daughter. Mauritz appeared along with his attorney. The minute order states the parties were sworn to testify on their behalf. It then states, "Restraining order as requested is denied with prejudice in its entirety." The court dissolved the previously issued temporary restraining order.
DISCUSSION
Lelito's opening brief presents a statement of facts with no citations to the record. This is in violation of rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court, which requires a party to support each reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the record. "It is not the task of the reviewing court to search the record for evidence that supports the party's statement; it is for the party to cite the court to those references. Upon the party's failure to do so, the appellate court need not consider or may disregard the matter." (Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 826, fn. 1; see Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [statements in appellate briefs not supported by citations to the record are improper and cannot be considered].)
Lelito's arguments on appeal are centered on the adequacy, or lack thereof, of the hearing on her request for a restraining order. She contends the hearing "lasted less than eight (8) minutes" and the first words from the court were, "I'm going to deny plaintiff's petition." However, she admits there is no record of the proceedings for this court to review. She contends she sought to obtain an agreed statement of the proceedings pursuant to rule 8.134 and the defendant would not agree. But she provides no citation to any record showing she followed the procedural steps necessary to obtain either an agreed statement (rule 8.134) or a settled statement (rule 8.137).
Lelito filed a motion in this court for an order for a settled statement pursuant to rule 8.137, stating she had submitted a proposed statement to defense counsel and it was declined. She attached a letter from Mauritz's attorney indicating he did not agree to proceed by way of agreed statement pursuant to rule 8.134. Mauritz opposed the motion stating Lelito had not complied with either rule 8.134 for an agreed statement or rule 8.137 for a settled statement. We issued an order on September 16, 2016, denying the motion without prejudice to file a motion to proceed by settled statement "along with her designation of record, in the superior court as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.137(a)(1)." There is no indication in the record provided by either Lelito or Mauritz that she made an effort to obtain a settled statement from the superior court.
" '[A] party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.' [Citation.] ' "A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent … ." ' [Citation.] A proper record includes a reporter's transcript or a settled statement of any hearing leading to the order being challenged on appeal." (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.)
"We cannot presume error from an incomplete record." (Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412.) We are not permitted to speculate as to the contents of the missing portions of the record or the issues that may have been raised below. (Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) The failure to provide an adequate record on appeal "precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial court's determination." (Estrada v. Ramirez, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 620, fn. 1.)
Although Lelito is representing herself, the rules of civil procedure apply equally to her. "A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants having attorneys." (Elena S. v. Kroutik, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 574; see Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246–1247.)


DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded costs on appeal.



MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:



NARES, J.



DATO, J.