L & L Capital Property Management v. Tran CA1/1

Filed 3/6/25 L & L Capital Property Management v. Tran CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

L & L CAPITAL PROPERTY MANAGMENT, LLC, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168387, A168796

v. (Alameda County ERIC TRAN et al., Super. Ct. No. 22CV006928) Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellants Eric Tran and Jerry Tran appeal from the judgment entered against them in this forcible entry and detainer proceeding after a court trial (appeal No. A168387).2 They also purport to appeal from the denial of their motion for new trial (appeal No. A168796).3 We ordered the two appeals consolidated for briefing and disposition.

This appeal is appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion in 1

accordance with California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. A forcible entry and detainer action is a summary proceeding brought 2

by a party claiming to be the rightful possessor of real property. (See generally 28 Cal.Jur.3d (2025) Ejectment and Related Remedies, § 83.) 3An order denying a motion for a new trial is not appealable; however, it is reviewable on appeal from the underlying judgment. (Walker v. Los

1

The instant appeal is but a discrete chapter in a litigation saga between the parties that commenced in 2018 and was continuing to unfold in other lawsuits pending at the time judgment was entered in this case. The trial court issued a 15-page statement of decision, concluding the Trans had wrongfully seized possession of a commercial space that was being used for the cultivation of cannabis by entering the property, changing locks, and installing security guards to prevent respondents from entering the premises. Respondents maintain the judgment can, and should be, affirmed on the ground the Trans have failed to provide a record on appeal demonstrating the trial court erred. We agree the Trans’ appellate briefing is bereft of intelligible record cites, preventing this court from engaging in any meaningful review of their claims on appeal. (See Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 [“ ‘if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed,’ ” quoting Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9].) Some factual statements in the Trans’ briefing are purportedly supported by citations to a “CT.” But as respondents point out, no clerk’s transcript was designated in this case. Rather, as we stated in our order filed on September 23, 2024 (largely denying respondents’ request for additional time to file their brief ostensibly to allow the Trans time to put an adequate record before us), the Trans designated as the record on appeal an appendix under California Rules of Court, rule 8.124 and a reporter’s transcript. They filed no appendix and a partial reporter’s transcript. In their closing brief,