Filed 7/13/26 Arkas v. Sanchez CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
ARKAS, LLC, B350063
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 25CMCV00359
v.
BELEN SANCHEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Elizabeth L. Bradley, Judge. Affirmed.
The Ryan Firm, Timothy M. Ryan, Andrew J. Mase, and
Matthew H. Aguirre for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Belen Sanchez in pro per.
____________________
The trial court entered judgment against Belen Sanchez,
the defendant in an unlawful detainer action, after a trial at
which Sanchez failed to appear. The trial court denied Sanchez’s
motion to set aside or vacate that judgment. Sanchez appeals the
judgment and later order. Because Sanchez failed to provide
adequate briefing or record, we affirm.
Arkas, LLC brought a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer
action against Sanchez. Sanchez filed many pre-trial motions.
However, Sanchez did not attend the trial. The court found
Sanchez had been given timely notice of the trial and proceeded
without her.
The trial heard testimony and admitted evidence. The
court then ruled in Arkas’s favor and entered judgment against
Sanchez.
Sanchez filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the
trial court denied. Sanchez appeals the judgment and the order
denying vacation of the judgment.
We presume the trial court’s ruling is correct. (Gee v.
American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th
1412, 1416.) An appellant bears the affirmative burden of
demonstrating prejudicial error. (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar
Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050,
1070.) Appellants must support their assertions with cogent
argument with citation to authority and accurate citations to the
record. (Ibid.) Where appellants fail to provide an adequate
record to permit review, their arguments are forfeited. (Jameson
v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) These rules apply regardless
of whether the appellant appears in pro per. (Nwosu v. Uba
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.)
Sanchez has not provided an adequate record to allow us to
review the judgment and order she challenges. We therefore
must affirm.
The record includes a minute order from the trial. From
this, we know that the court heard testimony from two witnesses
2
and admitted several pieces of documentary evidence. But our
record includes none of this. Nor is there any document, such as
a settled statement of decision, reflecting the trial court’s factual
findings, reasoning, or legal conclusions.
In reviewing an unlawful detainer judgment, we review the
trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and legal
conclusions independently. (Palm Property Investments, LLC v.
Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425–1426.) Here, we lack
the evidence, the factual findings, and the legal conclusions.
Sanchez argues our review is independent and because the
record includes a notice to occupants to vacate that is facially
deficient, we have all we need to reverse. Not so. Sanchez’s
failure to provide an adequate record prevents us from viewing
that piece of evidence in context and from knowing what, if any,
factual findings or legal conclusions the court made. We cannot
review the trial court’s judgment for error in such circumstances.
Sanchez likewise leaves out a large portion of the briefing
on her motion to vacate the judgment, including Arkas’s
opposition brief, as well as the order denying the motion. This is
not an adequate record for review.
Sanchez also fails to cite to the record in her opening
brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) She claims to fix
this flaw in her reply brief. However, such a belated fix is
insufficient. (REO Broadcasting Consultants v. Martin (1999) 69
Cal.App.4th 489, 500 [we need not consider points raised for the
first time in a reply brief].) Moreover, Sanchez in fact adds only
two record citations in her reply brief; the other cites are mere
placeholders with a note to insert page numbers.
Because Sanchez has provided neither adequate briefing
nor record, we affirm the judgment and order.
3
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order and award costs to Arkas.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
4
