Reyes v. Sabha CA2/4

Filed 6/19/15 Reyes v. Sabha CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

VILMA GLORIA REYES, B256286

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC482927) v.

MOHAMMAD SABHA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ernest M. Hiroshige, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Bennett Kerns and Bennett Kerns for Plaintiff and Respondent. Law Office of Sam H. Nordean and Sam H. Nordean for Defendant and Appellant. ________________________

Mohammad Sabha, doing business as Rainbow Auto Sales, sold a used car to plaintiff Vilma Gloria Reyes. The sale was handled by Sabha’s sales representative, identified in the record simply as “Hugo.” The trial court found that Hugo induced Reyes to buy the car on time through a loan by a financing company. The vehicle was defective, and Reyes eventually stopped making payments on the car, leading to the lender repossessing the car. Reyes sued Sabha for breach of contract and fraud. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The court found in favor of Reyes, awarding damages for breach of contract and fraud. It awarded punitive damages based on fraud. The trial was not reported, and the record before us consists almost exclusively of the trial court’s statement of decision, the judgment itself, and the briefing of the parties. On this record we find no error, and affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION On appeal we apply the basic presumption in favor of the judgment: “A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 355, p. 400.) Since the record on appeal lacks a reporter’s transcript, we must and do rely on the trial court’s statement of decision, which was requested by the parties and prepared pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 632. The trial court received trial briefs from both sides, then, after trial, it called for further briefing, particularly with respect to arguments made by defendant. After this briefing was received, the court announced its ruling and asked respondent’s counsel to prepare a proposed statement of decision. Ultimately the court adopted that draft, with a single material change: it deleted a paragraph that would have increased the amount of punitive damages for fraud.