Western Sages Foundation v. Ku CA2/8

Filed 10/25/24 Western Sages Foundation v. Ku CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

WESTERN SAGES FOUNDATION, B329881

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 21GDCV00984)

LAN HUA KU,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joel L. Lofton, Judge. Affirmed. Tatone Law, Michelangelo Tatone, and Xiaona Ding for Defendant and Appellant. Bayley Law Firm and Guy R. Bayley for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

In January 2023, the trial court commenced a jury trial on plaintiff Western Sages Foundation’s (Western Sages) claim to recover unpaid rent owed by defendant Lan Hua Ku under a commercial lease. After Western Sages presented its case-in- chief and Ku testified on her own behalf, the court granted Ku’s request for judicial notice of “the Los Angeles County Covid-19 moratorium” (Moratorium). Western Sages agreed that it would not seek to recover any rent protected by the Moratorium. The court then granted Western Sages’ “motion for a directed verdict in the amount of $18,150.00, less the $2,000 security deposit as offset, for a total directed verdict of $16,150.” The court discharged the jury and stayed entry of judgment to allow Ku to submit a brief addressing whether Western Sages’ entire lawsuit was barred by the Moratorium. Ku later filed a “post-trial brief,” arguing that the Moratorium barred Western Sages’ action for repayment of unpaid rent. In February 2023, the court entered judgment in Western Sages’ favor and against Ku for $16,150. Ku appeals. She argues the court erred when it entered a directed verdict in Western Sages’ favor because the Moratorium barred Western Sages’ entire action to recover unpaid rent. As we explain, we must affirm the judgment because Ku has not provided us an adequate record to review her claims of error on appeal. We presume that an appealed judgment is correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) To overcome this presumption, the appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error and provide an adequate record on appeal. (Ibid.) “ ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by