Filed 6/17/26 Renzas v. Tong CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
JAMES RENZAS,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065490
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 30-2021-
01203301)
KEITH TIAN TONG,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of
Orange County, Nathan T. Vu, Judge. Affirmed.
Keith Tian Tong, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Keith Tian Tong appeals from a judgment and various
posttrial orders. Because he failed to provide an adequate record to enable
meaningful appellate review, we affirm.
FACTS
We glean the following facts from the limited record on appeal.1
This case arose from the collapse of Innovatech Capital Corp.
James Renzas filed a complaint against Innovatech, Tong, and others, and
Tong cross-complained against Renzas. Neither pleading is in the record, but
a minute order mentions that the parties asserted claims like conversion and
breach of fiduciary duty.
One week before trial, Tong (representing himself) filed a motion
for a court-ordered forensic audit of Innovatech. The trial court’s ruling on
that motion is not in the record, but we presume from Tong’s briefing that the
motion was denied. The matter went to trial shortly thereafter, and the jury
returned a verdict awarding damages to Renzas.
According to the register of actions, Tong filed a motion for new
trial, a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and a motion to
stay. These motions are also not in the record. The trial court denied all three
motions and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Renzas and against
Tong in the amount of $72,780.
The following day, Tong filed a notice of appeal. He also filed a
motion for reconsideration of his audit request, a renewed motion to stay, and
1 Tong’s brief does not include any record citations. (See Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) We disregard factual contentions that are
not supported by citations to the record. (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36
Cal.App.5th 514, 520.)
2
a motion to disqualify the trial judge. The trial court’s ruling on those
motions is not in the record.
DISCUSSION
Tong presents a number of arguments on appeal—for example,
that the trial court erred in denying his request for a forensic audit, that the
damages award was unsupported, that the proceedings were tainted by
judicial bias, and that various procedural irregularities deprived him of a fair
trial. Unfortunately, his failure to provide a proper record prevents us from
considering his arguments on the merits.
A trial court’s orders and judgment are presumed correct, and the
burden is on the appellant to demonstrate, based on the appellate record,
that the court committed a reversible error. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5
Cal.5th 594, 609.) If an appellant fails to provide an adequate record, the
court’s decision must be affirmed. (Ibid.; see State Comp. Ins. Fund v.
WallDesign Inc. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1528, fn.1 [“‘if it is not in the
record, it did not happen’”].) These same rules apply to self-represented
litigants. (See Dilbert v. Newsom (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 317, 323.)
Tong did not provide a sufficient record to support his arguments
on appeal. The appellate record includes only his motion for a forensic audit,
his reply brief in support of that motion, the reporter’s transcript of closing
arguments, the trial court’s minute order denying his posttrial motions, and
various filings from after he filed his notice of appeal. The record is devoid of
any pleadings, the opposition to and the court’s ruling on Tong’s audit
motion, a transcript of what transpired at trial, the court’s ruling on Tong’s
posttrial motions, or the judgment. Without that record, we do not know what
happened in the proceedings below and cannot discern whether any
reversible error occurred.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment and orders are affirmed. As there has been no
appearance by respondents, all parties shall bear their own costs. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
SCOTT, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
DELANEY, J.
4