Washington-Allen v. Richardson CA2/8

Filed 10/30/13 Washington-Allen v. Richardson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MARBELLA WASHINGTON-ALLEN, B243431

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC055508) v.

EDDIE RICHARDSON et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ross M. Klein, Judge. Affirmed.

Marbella Washington-Allen, in pro. per.; and Ruth Rose for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of George T. Kelly and George T. Kelly for Defendants and Respondents.

**********

Plaintiff and appellant Marbella Washington-Allen, appearing in propria persona, appeals from the judgment entered, following a court trial, in favor of defendants and respondents Eddie Richardson, Susie Kemp and Jenny Williams. Plaintiff argues the trial court failed to consider all of the evidence presented at trial, specifically that the court disregarded her expert’s testimony. Plaintiff also argues the trial court’s statement of decision, including the discussion of the credibility of the evidence offered by plaintiff, reveals judicial bias that deprived of her a fair trial. We affirm. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the judgment entered in favor of defendants. Plaintiff submitted a clerk’s transcript which consists, in its entirety, of the superior court’s civil case summary index, the trial court’s one-page decision dated June 29, 2012, defendants’ notice of the court’s ruling, the judgment entered thereon and plaintiff’s notice of appeal. To the extent plaintiff’s opening brief before this court contains a statement of facts, defendants responded in their brief that it is, in most respects, accurate, even if incomplete. We endeavor to provide a summary of the material facts from these limited sources. In January 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants stating claims for assault and battery arising from an incident that occurred at the parties’ church. Defendants answered. The case proceeded to a court trial in May 2012, and took place over the course of two days. Plaintiff was represented by counsel at trial and testified in the case, along with several witnesses, including plaintiff’s doctor (Dr. Simpson). The trial court ruled in favor of defendants, finding that plaintiff failed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. Of particular significance, the court explained, in its written ruling, the “oral testimony of the Plaintiff and her witnesses is minimized and counterbalanced by a lack of any independent supporting evidence.” And, the “Defendants’ evidence eviscerates the Plaintiff’s position.” The court expressly found the “defense witnesses to be more credible than the Plaintiff’s witnesses based on their demeanor, articulate and consistent answers. The Plaintiff, in stark contrast, had selective recollection and was evasive.”