Shabanov v. SF Housing Authority

Filed 8/15/07 Shabanov v. SF Housing Authority CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

I.

Introduction

Acting in propria persona, appellants Konstantin Shabanov, Regina Kasvan and Diana Shabanov (collectively the Shabanovs) appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint against respondent San Francisco Housing Authority (the Housing Authority) following the sustaining of the Housing Authoritys demurrer without leave to amend. The complaint appears to be a wrongful death action alleging that Yuri Shabanov, the Shabanovs elderly father, died as a result of the Housing Authoritys failure to take reasonable means to prevent his fall from his Housing Authority apartment window. Because the Shabanovs have failed to meet their burden, as the appellants, to present an adequate record for review, we affirm.

II.

Discussion

As noted, the Shabanovs filed the instant appeal in propria persona. They have explained that the purpose of the briefing they have submitted in this matter is to show the liability of [the Housing Authority] for wrongful death of our father and for intentional tort of this agency based on discriminatory housing practice [sic].

However, properly focused, the Shabanovs appeal should attempt to convince this court that the trial court erroneously sustained the demurrer to their complaint without leave to amend. Critically, absent from the record are copies of the Housing Authoritys demurrer, the Shabanovs opposition thereto, and any reply papers. The record on appeal is also devoid of the complete signed order sustaining the demurrer and the requisite subsequent judgment of dismissal. Moreover, we have not been furnished with a reporters transcript of any of the relevant proceedings in the trial court. Nor have the Shabanovs provided us with a settled statement of those proceedings.

It is the appellants burden to provide an adequate record on appeal. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 [a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record]; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102 [appellant . . . has not met her burden of showing error by an adequate record].) We are not permitted to speculate as to the contents of the missing portions of the record or the issues the Shabanovs may have raised below. (Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1051-1052; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) An appellants failure to provide an adequate record on appeal precludes an adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial courts determination. [Citation.] (Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1.)

The Shabanovs in propria persona status does not alter that conclusion. As the Supreme Court has made clear, mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. [Citation.] . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; see also Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)

Essentially conceding that the record before us is inadequate for review, the Shabanovs indicate that [u]pon the court [sic] request, we are ready to designate the demurrer, the court hearing transcript and other designated items right away. However, absent a strong showing of good cause, we are precluded from granting augmentation of the record at this late stage of the proceedings. (See People v. Preslie (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 486, 492 [informal requests for augmentation made after a reasonable time has expired from receiving the record on appeal, and particularly as late as those contained in briefs, will be denied absent a strong showing of unusual or unavoidable circumstances giving rise to the delay].) No effort has been made to explain or justify the inordinate delay in requesting a proper appellate record in this case; consequently, the Shabanovs belated request to augment the appellate record is denied.

III.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Ruvolo, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

Reardon, J.

_________________________

Rivera, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.

Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.