Souch v. IOD
Filed 2/7/13 Souch v. IOD CA2/2
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
TWO
MICHELLE SOUCH et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
IOD INCORPORATED,
Defendant and Respondent.
B241722
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC463635)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior
Court of
County.
William F. Fahey, Judge.
Affirmed.
Themis Law Group and Timothy P.
Mitchell for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Foley & Lardner, Tami S. Smason
and Lauren T. Clark for Defendant and Respondent.
___________________________
Plaintiffs and appellants Michelle
Souch, Daniel Anderson, and Darren Wise appeal from a judgment following a
trial court order granting defendant and respondent IOD Incorporated’s
an adequate record on appeal, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
From the
limited record provided on appeal, we know that on June 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a complaint
against defendant. On January 5, 2012, defendant moved for
summary judgment. On May 1, 2012, the
trial court granted defendant’s motion on eight different and independent
grounds: (1) plaintiffs failed to timely
serve their opposition to defendant’s motion, prejudicing defendant; (2)
plaintiffs presented no competent evidence that they have standing; (3)
plaintiffs presented no competent evidence that defendant communicated with
them; (4) plaintiffs presented no competent evidence that they relied upon any
communication from defendant; (5) plaintiffs presented no competent evidence
that they were misled by any communication from defendant; (6) plaintiffs
presented no competent evidence of damages; (7) plaintiffs relied upon
incorrect interpretations of Health and Safety Code section 123100 et seq. and
Evidence Code section 1158; and (8) there was no issue of material fact,
thereby entitling defendant to judgment as a matter of law.
Judgment was entered, and
plaintiffs’ timely appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION
An appellate court presumes that
the judgment appealed from is correct. (
574; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We adopt all intendments and inferences to
affirm the judgment unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53
Cal.2d 567, 583.) An appellant has the
burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness, and we decline to consider
the issues raised in plaintiff’s opening brief that are not properly presented
or sufficiently developed to be cognizable, and we treat them as waived. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th
764, 793; People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 214, fn. 19; In
re David L. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1655, 1661; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539,
545–546.)
Plaintiffs do not provide us with
the basic information that we need to determine whether the trial court erred
in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. They did not provide us with a copy of their
complaint or their opposition to defendant’s motion. Absent these critical papers, we cannot
evaluate the merits of plaintiffs’ appeal.
(Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1320–1321;
831, 836.)
It is well-settled that an
appellate court may affirm a summary judgment on any correct legal theory, so
long as the parties had an adequate opportunity to address that theory in the
trial court. (
forth in the trial court’s order, and plaintiffs do not challenge all of them,
we must affirm.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the trial court is
affirmed. Defendant is entitled to costs
on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTS.
______________________________,
J.
ASHMANN-GERST
We concur:
_______________________________,
P. J.
BOREN
_______________________________,
J.
CHAVEZ
