Khorovets v. County of Placer CA3

Filed 9/27/23 Khorovets v. County of Placer CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

TATYANA KHOROVETS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C096786

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCV0045450)

COUNTY OF PLACER,

Defendant and Respondent.

After warning Tatyana Khorovets that she was not in compliance with county code, the County of Placer (the County) obtained an inspection warrant and cleaned up her real property. Khorovets sued the County for trespass on her real property and

1

conversion of her personal property. The trial court granted the County’s motions for discovery-related terminating sanctions and summary judgment. Khorovets now contends the judgment against her should be reversed because the County violated her constitutional rights. Because Khorovets has not carried her burden on appeal to show prejudicial error, we will affirm the judgment. STANDARDS ON REVIEW A self-represented litigant is entitled to the same consideration as other litigants and attorneys, and is held to the same rules of procedure. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639, questioned on another ground in Dumas v. Stocker (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1262, 1268, fn. 13.) We must presume the judgment is correct; the appellant has the burden to establish prejudicial error. (Claudio v. Regents of the University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 252.) The appellant also has a duty to provide this court with an adequate record of the trial court proceedings. (See Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) BACKGROUND Khorovets did not provide us with a complete record. Although she filed an appellant’s appendix and settled statement, she did not include the County’s separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of its motion for summary judgment. (See Weiss v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [separate statements identify disputed facts].) Our recitation of the background is derived from the complaint and the trial court orders. According to Khorovets, Officer Estelle Maxwell met a County contractor on the Khorovets property at 7:00 a.m. and the contractor removed various things from the property, including a manufactured home, a travel trailer, a generator, fencing, and a van, even though a warrant issued by the trial court allowed removal of property only between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Khorovets sought damages from the County.