Law Office of Robert M. Baskin v. Diaz CA2/6

Filed 4/15/25 Law Office of Robert M. Baskin v. Diaz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. 2d Civ. No. B337006 BASKIN, LLC, (Super. Ct. No. 56-2022- 00562237-CU-BC-VTA) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

FRANCISCO FERNANDO DIAZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Francisco Fernando Diaz appeals, in propria persona, a money judgment obtained by the Law Offices of Robert M. Baskin, LLC (Baskin). We affirm. DISCUSSION Diaz’s brief consists entirely of a lengthy and largely unintelligible narration of what he believes Baskin’s deficiencies were in representing him. The brief is bereft of any citation to the record. In fact, there is no reporter’s transcript. Diaz failed to designate one. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(c) [each

1

brief must support any reference to a matter in the record by citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter of the record appears].) Diaz’s failure to provide and cite to the record is fatal to his appeal. Where the appellant has not provided a reporter’s transcript, we conclusively presume the evidence supports the judgment. (Ford v. State of California (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 507, 517.) In addition, on appeal we indulge in all intendments and presumptions that the judgment is correct on matters on which the record is silent. (Kunzler v. Karde (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 683, 688.) Here Diaz has failed to rebut the presumption that the judgment is correct.1 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.