Hunter v. Majdalani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 5/21/13  Hunter v. Majdalani CA2/4

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.

 

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION FOUR

 

 

 

 

 

 
>

ARTHUR HUNTER,               Plaintiff and Appellant,               v.   NASEEM MAJDALANI,               Defendant and Respondent.

B242060         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. BC444267)

 

 

 

 

 

 

            APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Mary Ann Murphy, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Arthur
Hunter, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Grant,
Genovese & Baratta and Harry A. Safarian for Defendant and Respondent.

 

 

            Plaintiff/appellant Arthur Hunter
filed the present action against his landlord, defendant/respondent Naseem
Majdalani, on August 23, 2010.  He filed the operative third amended
complaint, alleging causes of action for breach
of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and breach of habitability, on December 9, 2011.  On May
22, 2012, the trial court dismissed the action “for plaintiff’s
failure to comply with orders dated 4/17/12,
11/9/11, and 2/5/12.” 

            Plaintiff
contends that the trial court dismissed his action because he failed to file a
fourth amended complaint and that such dismissal was an abuse of
discretion.  Defendant responds that
plaintiff’s action was dismissed because plaintiff failed to comply with the
trial court’s order to serve verified responses to written discovery, and he
urges that the dismissal was within the court’s discretion.

            To
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing
plaintiff’s case, we would need to review the orders referenced in the
dismissal, as well as the briefs and arguments of the parties filed in
connection with those orders.  However,
plaintiff did not include any of these documents in his appellate record.  Because he failed to supply us with an adequate
appellate record, we must affirm the judgment. 
(E.g., Defend Bayview Hunters
Point Com. v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 846,
859-860 [“Error must be affirmatively shown. 
(Denham v. Superior Court
(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)  The party
appealing has the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness.  For this purpose, it must provide an adequate
appellate record demonstrating the alleged error.  Failure to provide an adequate record on an
issue requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant.  (Maria
P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.)”].)

 

DISPOSITION

 

            The judgment of dismissal is
affirmed.  Respondent is awarded his
costs on appeal.

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

 

 

                                                                                    SUZUKAWA,
J.

 

We concur:

 

 

 

            WILLHITE,
Acting P. J.

 

 

 

            MANELLA, J.