Filed 8/26/26 Mueller v. Schneider’s Automotive CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
GERHARD S. MUELLER, 2d Civil No. B350736
(Super. Ct. No.
Plaintiff and Appellant, 2023CUPL015308)
(Ventura County)
v.
SCHNEIDER’S AUTOMOTIVE,
Defendant and Respondent.
We exercise considerable restraint and do not, sua sponte,
impose sanctions for this unquestionably frivolous appeal.
Respondent claims that the appeal is frivolous but does not seek
sanctions. Appellant represents himself and we do not doubt the
sincerity of his beliefs that, somehow, the automotive repair work
to his vehicle was defective and that he has suffered damages as
a result of this defective work.
Even though the parties were expressly warned of the
adverse consequences that would flow from the absence of a court
reporter, the parties elected to proceed without a verbatim
record. “The parties opted not to utilize the services of a court
reporter . . . .” The judgment shows that the trial court, sitting as
trier of fact, determined that appellant “did not prove any of his
claims against [Respondent]. The court finds in favor of
[Respondent].” This is an “adverse factual finding” and dooms
appellant on appeal. (E.g., In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011)
194 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1097.)
The judgment is presumed to be correct. (L.O. v. Kilrain
(2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 619.) Appellant, nevertheless, recites
evidence he says shows that the trial court committed reversible
error. These evidentiary claims are forfeited because there is no
reporter’s transcript. (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th
570, 574.) This appeal amounts to an impermissible request for
us to reweigh the facts and the inferences which can be drawn
therefrom. We do not do so. (L.O. v. Kilrain, supra, at p. 619.)
We are not “fact finders.” Each of the theories of recovery rest
upon factual claims not credited by the trier of fact.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
CODY, P. J.
BALTODANO, J.
2
Ronda J. McKaig, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Gerhard S. Mueller, in pro. per, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Knauss Law Group and Joanne Mirras Knauss, for
Defendant and Respondent.