Vazquez v. Manheim Investments CA4/3

Filed 4/15/25 Vazquez v. Manheim Investments CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063748

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021-01215829)

MANHEIM INVESTMENTS, INC. OPINION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Knill, Judge. Affirmed. Kordab Law Offices, Yadira De La Rosa and Hekmat Kordab for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bates Winter Talmachoff & Vandersluys, Mary K. Talmachoff and Joel C. Knaack for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered against plaintiff Antonio Vazquez in his personal injury lawsuit alleging that he was injured at a car auction conducted by defendant Manheim Investments, Inc. (Manheim) when an employee of Manheim negligently drove a vehicle and ran over his foot. Manheim filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Vazquez’s claims were waived as a result of a release he had signed, and also that Vazquez had assumed the risk. The trial court entered judgment. On appeal, Vazquez failed to designate an adequate record. He did not, for example, include the separate statement of material facts, nor did he include any of the exhibits that formed the basis of the trial court’s ruling (nor the ruling itself). Instead, he included only snippets of certain trial court exhibits as exhibits to his opening brief. Naturally, Manheim pointed this out in its respondent’s brief and argued there was an inadequate record to reverse the judgment. Manheim also filed a motion to strike the exhibits to the opening brief. No timely opposition was filed. In response, this court filed an order asking the parties to brief whether the record should be augmented to include the exhibits Vazquez had attached to his brief. After receiving letter briefs from both sides, in which Manheim pointed out that while the documents in some of the exhibits could properly be made part of the record, those documents were incomplete, we offered Manheim the opportunity to file a motion to augment the record with the complete documents. Manheim declined to do so. However, Vazquez did file a motion to augment the record to include various documents, among them the separate statement of material facts and the court’s ruling. We issued an order that we would decide the motion to augment in conjunction with the appeal.