Filed 7/31/26 Rogers v. The Coliseum Center CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
GREGORY DONNELL ROGERS, B346764
Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 20STCV39278
v.
THE COLISEUM CENTER, LLC
et al.,
Defendants and
Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Dean J. Kitchens, Judge. Affirmed.
Heidari Law Group and Sam Ryan Heidari for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter and Nikhil P. Pole for
Defendants and Respondents.
____________________
The trial court entered judgement against Gregory Donnell
Rogers after granting the summary judgment motion of The
Coliseum Center, LLC and Axiom Real Estate Investments, Inc.
because Rogers submitted a “grossly inadequate” separate
statement. Rogers appeals but fails to provide an adequate
record for review. We affirm.
After a man yelled racial slurs at Rogers and then ran into
Rogers with his car, Rogers sued Coliseum, Axiom, International
Security Academy, Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, and
Jonathan Gonzalez-Cruz. Rogers claimed Gonzalez-Cruz was a
security guard employed by Academy, the company hired by
Coliseum and Axiom to provide security at the property where he
was attacked and that Gonzalez-Cruz was the man who attacked
him.
Coliseum and Axiom filed a motion for summary judgment,
complete with separate statement. In his response to Coliseum’s
and Axiom’s separate statement, Rogers neglected to cite any
evidence, even where he stated he was disputing the fact.
The trial court granted Coliseum’s and Axiom’s motion for
summary judgment and entered judgment against Rogers. From
a later order entered on a separate motion for summary
judgment, we can tell the trial court found Rogers’s separate
statement “grossly inadequate.” However, Rogers failed to
include the trial court’s order on the motion for summary
judgment in the record for this appeal.
We presume the trial court’s ruling is correct. (Gee v.
American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th
1412, 1416.) An appellant bears the affirmative burden of
demonstrating prejudicial error. (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar
Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050,
2
1070.) The appellant must support his assertion with cogent
argument with citation to authority and accurate citations to the
record. (Ibid.) Where the appellant fails to provide an adequate
record to permit review, his arguments are forfeited. (Jameson v.
Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).)
The statute governing summary judgment states clearly
both that: (1) any material fact the opposing party disputes shall
be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence and (2)
failure to comply with this requirement may constitute a
sufficient ground for granting the motion. (Code of Civil
Procedure § 437c(b)(3).) We review such a ruling for abuse of
discretion. (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v. State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1208.)
We are stymied by Rogers’s failure to provide an adequate
record for review.
Rogers neglected to include in the record the very order he
is appealing, as well as additional critical documents such as
Coliseum’s and Axiom’s reply brief and evidentiary objections and
the trial court’s rulings on those objections. Nor did he provide a
reporter’s transcript. Even after Coliseum and Axiom called out
this failure in their brief, he did not rectify the mistake. Instead,
he quotes a later order in which the trial court references the
appealed order and attempts to make arguments about what it
means the court did in the appealed order. This is insufficient.
Rogers has forfeited these arguments by failing to provide a
proper record. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609.)
3
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment and award costs to Coliseum and
Axiom.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
4