Filed 9/24/26 Lazerson v. Newrez LLC
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
DAVID LAZERSON,
Plaintiff and Appellant, A174215
v. (Humboldt County
NEWREZ LLC et al., Super. Ct. No. CV2300124)
Defendants and Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
David Lazerson appeals from an April 25, 2025 order entered after the
trial court granted the summary judgment motion filed by NewRez LLC,
doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, and Caliber Home Loans,
Inc. (collectively, Respondents).
The trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of
Respondents held that there were no triable issues of material fact and
Lazerson could not establish the elements of his cause of action for trespass
against Respondents. The order also dismissed the second amended
complaint and stated that Lazerson “shall take nothing by way of his [second
amended complaint].” Respondents served a “Notice of Entry of April 25,
1 We conclude this matter is proper for disposition by memorandum
opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial
Administration, section 8.1.
1
2025 Order Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” on
May 12, 2025 and filed a copy with the court the following day. The notice
stated that the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and
attached the court’s order.
Even assuming this court has jurisdiction,2 Lazerson has failed to
provide an adequate record for this court to meaningfully review the trial
court’s decision to grant Respondents’ motion for summary judgment. The
clerk’s transcript on appeal contains the second amended complaint,
Respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and Respondents’ reply in
support of the motion for summary judgment, but it does not include
Lazerson’s opposition to the motion or any supporting documents.3 Nor does
the record include a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the motion.
“[A] fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court
judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an
appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the
appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal
2 Although Respondents served a notice of entry of the order, there
appears to be no judgment entered by the trial court. We decline to treat the
court’s order granting summary judgment and dismissing the case as a
judgment for the purpose of dismissing the appeal. Instead, because the
parties treated the order as the trial court’s final decision and the appeal has
been fully briefed, we exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as valid.
(See Meinhardt v. City of Sunnyvale (2024) 16 Cal.5th 643, 657 [noting
common practice of appellate court’s exercising their discretion to treat
orders that are not statutorily appealable as valid but declining to construe a
trial court’s ruling to be a judgment for purposes of dismissing an appeal as
untimely in administrative mandamus proceeding].)
3 While Lazerson attached his opposition to the motion for summary
judgment to the opening brief, we granted Respondents’ unopposed motion to
strike the exhibits attached to the opening brief. Even those exhibits did not
include the evidence on which Lazerson relied to oppose the motion.
2
of the judgment. . . . ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record
is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision
of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th
594, 608–609 (Jameson).) “Consequently, plaintiff has the burden of
providing an adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate
record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against plaintiff.”
(Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498,
502.)
Lazerson asserts that he presented sufficient evidence to establish each
element of trespass, but he failed to include any of that evidence in the
record. Without that evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred
insofar as it determined that there was no triable issue of material fact.
Therefore, Lazerson has failed to carry his burden, and we must affirm the
trial court’s order. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609; Stasz v. Eisenberg
(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Costs awarded to Respondents. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)
3
_________________________
Gordon, J.*
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Streeter, Acting P. J.
_________________________
Goldman, J.
A174215/Lazerson v. NEWREZ
* Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
4