Welch v. State Bar of California

Filed 5/7/08 Welch v. State Bar of California 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed.

Vickie Welch, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Office of General Counsel, State Bar of California, Marie M. Moffat, Lawrence C. Yee, and Danielle A. Lee for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________

Vickie Welch appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer to her complaint against the State Bar of California without leave to amend.[1] Apparently she had an issue with the State Bar regarding her complaint against an attorney who formerly represented her. The only document in the clerks transcript on appeal is the minute order of the trial courts ruling. It states that the demurrer is sustained on the grounds stated in open court and as fully reflected in the notes of the court reporter hereby incorporated by reference. There is no copy of the complaint, the demurrer, or any response filed by Ms. Welch. Ms. Welch did not request preparation of a reporters transcript on appeal. On appeal, she filed a request to augment the record, which was denied without prejudice. She did not renew her request to augment the record.

Under these circumstances, we are unable to review the merits of the trial courts ruling. It is axiomatic it is the appellants responsibility to provide an adequate record on appeal. (See Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [to overcome presumption on appeal that an appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, appellant must provide adequate record demonstrating error]; Estrada v. Ramirez (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 618, 620, fn. 1 [burden on appellant to provide accurate record on appeal to demonstrate error; failure to do so precludes adequate review and results in affirmance of the trial courts determination]; see also Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2005) 4:43, p. 4-10.1 [appellate record inadequate when it appears to show any need for speculation or inference in determining whether error occurred].) (Lincoln Fountain Villas Homeowners Assn. v.State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 999, 1004, fn. 1.)

Appealed judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown. (Denhamv.Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)  . . . Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against plaintiff. ([Maria P.v.Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1281,] 1295-1296.) (Hernandezv.CaliforniaHospitalMedicalCenter (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.)

The general rule is that an appellant appearing in propria persona is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williamsv.Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.) Applying the presumption that the trial courts ruling is correct, we affirm the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. In light of our conclusion, we deny appellants motion to amend her reply brief.

DISPOSITION

The order sustaining the demurrer is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

MANELLA, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] An order sustaining a demurrer is not appealable; appeal lies from an order of dismissal following the order sustaining the demurrer. We shall, however, deem the appeal in this case to be from an order of dismissal. (See Radesky v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 537, 539