Byrne's Special Works v. Eng CA1/5

Filed 6/30/22 Byrne’s Special Works v. Eng CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

BYRNE’S SPECIAL WORKS, LLC,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A163012 v.

MARTIN ENG, (San Francisco City and County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CGC-18-566741)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Martin Eng, acting in propria persona, appeals from a default judgment in favor of plaintiff Byrne’s Special Works, LLC (Byrne’s) quieting title to a San Francisco property and cancelling various instruments clouding its title. Eng contends service of process by publication was defective and that the trial court erred by not allowing him to argue at the default prove-up hearing.

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant 1

to Standard 8.1 of the California Standards of Judicial Administration, and the First Appellate District Local Rules, rule 19. 1

We dismiss the appeal. The trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct, and it is the burden of the party challenging it to demonstrate prejudicial error. (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125.) To do so, the appellant must provide an adequate record (Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348) and reasoned legal argument supported by references to the record and pertinent authority. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994-995; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246; Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(B)-(C), 8.204(a)(2)(C).)

Eng has done none of those things. He asserts service of process was defective because Byrne’s published notice in a subsidiary of the Orange County Register rather than the Register itself, but he included no documents related to service in the record on appeal. Moreover, he provides no legal argument in support of his claim the alleged method of publication was invalid. By the same token, nothing in the limited record on appeal supports Eng’s claim that the court precluded him from arguing at the prove-up hearing and, again, he has failed to present any reasoned legal argument to support his view that the court acted in error.