Purnell v. Public Storage CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 21, 2026 No. B343257Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff forfeited her appeal by failing to provide record citations and that the trial court did not err in denying a continuance because it properly found the plaintiff was served.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a request to continue the summary judgment hearing.
Whether the plaintiff forfeited her appellate arguments by failing to provide citations to the record.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude as a threshold matter that plaintiff has forfeited her challenge to the judgment by failing to adequately cite to the record in her appellate briefs.”

“In the absence of a reporter’s transcript, we are required by the doctrine of implied findings to presume that the trial court made all findings necessary to support its order.”

Filed 1/21/26 Purnell v. Public Storage CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

DEBORAH PURNELL, B343257

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23SMCV04299) v.

PUBLIC STORAGE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Young, Judge. Affirmed. Deborah Purnell, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sacro & Walker and Craig L. Dunkin for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Plaintiff Deborah Purnell (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment for defendant Public Storage. Plaintiff contends that Public Storage did not properly serve her with its motion for summary judgment, and the trial court erred by giving her insufficient time to oppose the motion. We find no error, and thus we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed the present action in September 2023.1 In brief, the operative complaint alleges that for more than 11 years, plaintiff stored her truck in a parking space she rented from Public Storage. During that time, Public Storage allegedly allowed third parties to occupy and vandalize the truck “on what appear[ed] to be a daily basis.” Plaintiff alleges that Public Storage’s failure to provide safe storage for her truck gave rise to a variety of causes of action, including fraud, breach of implied warranty of habitability, negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Public Storage filed a motion for summary judgment on September 16, 2024,2 alleging, among other things, that plaintiff’s claims were time-barred. The proof of service attached

Purnell v. Public Storage CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DEBORAH PURNELL, B343257

PUBLIC STORAGE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

HANASONO, J.

AI Brief