Queen of the Light La Nora Anderson v. TBC Associates CA1/3

Filed 12/1/15 Queen of the Light La Nora Anderson v. TBC Associates CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

QUEEN OF THE LIGHT LA NORA ANDERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A142703

v. (Contra Costa County TBC ASSOCIATES et al., Super. Ct. No. C11-01971) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Queen of the Light La Nora Anderson appeals in propria persona (pro. per.) from a judgment entered after a court trial on a personal injury claim. Because plaintiff’s failure to provide this court with an adequate record precludes appellate review, we shall dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND The appellate record provided to this court does not include a copy of a complaint or any document filed or prepared by the defendants in the action below, other than the proposed judgment. Instead, the clerk’s transcript consists of various pleadings filed by plaintiff, including oppositions to a demurrer and a motion to strike. A supplemental clerk’s transcript contains what appear to be trial exhibits offered by plaintiff consisting of various pictures. However, there is no indication the exhibits were received into evidence at trial. Although plaintiff sought to have a reporter’s transcript included in the appellate record, she did not designate any proceedings to transcribe and, in any event, there was no reporter present at trial. Plaintiff did not seek to prepare a settled or agreed

1

statement to serve as the record of the oral proceedings at trial.1 (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.120(b), 8.134, 8.137.) Consequently, there is no record of the oral proceedings conducted in the trial court. Based upon what we can discern from the limited record before us, plaintiff was allegedly injured in 2009 when she fell at an apartment complex located in Richmond. She filed suit in Contra Costa County Superior Court against defendants TBC Associates and Gary Roda. As best as we can tell, the individual defendants are the owners of the property where plaintiff allegedly suffered a fall. A court trial was conducted over two days in May 2014. In July 2014, the court issued a decision in favor of defendants. The decision notes that the matter was tried in less than 8 hours and that no statement of decision was requested. The decision states: “Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden of proof as to liability. The crack in the concrete surface that plaintiff claims caused her fall was trivial in nature and also open and obvious to all of the users of the property. The court finds that she shall take nothing by way of this action.” Plaintiff appealed from the court’s decision. The court subsequently entered judgment in favor of defendants. We shall treat the appeal as having been taken from the subsequently entered judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(1).) DISCUSSION Defendants contend that the appeal fails for a lack of an adequate record. We agree. On appeal, we presume the judgment to be correct and indulge all intendments and presumptions to support it regarding matters as to which the record is silent. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; accord, Gee v. American Realty &