Filed 7/6/26 Spring Towers v. Carlson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SPRING TOWERS, LLC., B342957
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24STCV10041)
v.
JACOB CARLSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Affirmed.
Jacob Carlson, in pro. per., and Brian Barajas for
Defendant and Appellant
Law Office of Aaron Kohanim and Aaron Kohanim for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jacob Carlson appeals the judgment in favor of Spring
Towers, LLC in this unlawful detainer action. We find this
matter appropriate for disposition by a memorandum opinion in
accordance with the California Standards of Judicial
Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum opinions].)
In his answer to Spring Towers’s complaint, Carlson
asserted, inter alia, the affirmative defense of retaliatory
eviction. Subsequently, Spring Towers filed a motion in limine
seeking to exclude all evidence “regarding harassment,
retaliation and trespass, whatsoever” as irrelevant and more
prejudicial than probative pursuant to Evidence Code
section 352. Carlson opposed the motion. After a hearing, the
trial court granted the motion in limine as to evidence of
retaliation because “[d]efendant cannot show that he was not in
default in payment of the rent and so, therefore, could not raise a
defense of retaliatory eviction, Civil Code [section] 1942.5 and the
CACI instruction [No.] 4321.”
The jury found in favor of Spring Towers. Carlson appeals,
asserting the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a
new trial based on error in granting the motion in limine.
Specifically, Carlson alleges that the common law retaliation
defense applies even when rent is owed; retaliatory eviction is a
question of fact that cannot be resolved without a trial; and the
“[e]xclusion of [e]vidence is a misuse of the motion in limine.”
(Boldface and underscoring omitted.) He contends that because
the court “exclud[ed]” an “entire affirmative defense[],” this court
must view the evidence most favorably to him, resolving all
presumptions, inferences, and doubts in his favor, and may only
2
uphold the judgment for the respondent if it is required as a
matter of law. Elsewhere he contends the alleged error is
reversible per se, and that if it is subject to a harmless error
analysis, reversal is required because this defense was central to
the case and its exclusion “likely affected the outcome.”
We cannot properly review this argument because the
record is inadequate. The party seeking to challenge a judgment
on appeal has the burden to provide an adequate record to assess
error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) Carlson
did not provide a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the
motion in limine, and the record does not contain an agreed or
settled statement in lieu of a reporter’s transcript of that hearing.
We therefore do not know “ ‘what grounds were advanced, what
arguments were made, and what facts may have been admitted,
mutually assumed or judicially noticed at the hearing.’ ” (Snell v.
Superior Court (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 44, 49.) The absence of a
reporter’s transcript or settled statement precludes Carlson “from
raising any evidentiary issues on appeal.” (Hodges v. Mark
(1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) Moreover, the record on appeal
lacks an offer of proof or description of the evidence Carlson was
prevented from presenting and a reporter’s transcript or settled
statement for the parties’ cases in chief. This further prevents us
from determining whether the trial court erred and from
assessing, if necessary, the impact of and appropriate remedy for
any error. Where, as here, a party fails to furnish an adequate
record of the challenged proceedings, their claim on appeal must
be resolved against them. (Maria P., at pp. 1295–1296.)
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its
costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
VIRAMONTES, J.
SCHERB, J.
4
