Swanegan v. A-1 Shower Door and Mirror Co. CA5

Filed 5/15/24 Swanegan v. A-1 Shower Door and Mirror Co. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ORSYNDAH SWANEGAN, F085361 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 12CECG00981) v.

A-1 SHOWER DOOR AND MIRROR OPINION COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT1* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A. Gaab, Judge. Orsyndah Swanegan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Orsyndah Swanegan, appearing in propria persona, appeals from an order denying her motion to amend a judgment to add a judgment debtor. She has failed to provide an adequate record of the trial court proceedings or to file a brief in compliance with

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

applicable California Rules of Court. We conclude that Swanegan has thereby forfeited her appellate arguments, and we affirm the trial court’s decision. “ ‘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.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Also, “[a] self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants having attorneys.” (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574; accord Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985 [self-represented litigant not entitled to lenient treatment].) We begin with the lack of an adequate record. According to Swanegan’s notice of appeal, she appeals from a September 28, 2022, order denying her motion to amend a judgment. The two-page order begins: “The papers filed with this motion do not include a memorandum of points and authorities or declaration. Plaintiff filed a ‘Notice of Motion,’ as well as a document titled ‘Amendment’ listing the reasons she believes Timothy L. Webb should be named as a judgment debtor and attaching Exhibits A through G. There is no proof of service of either document. The failure to serve the document alone is sufficient for the court to deny the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)” The order continues: “The court previously denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment to name Timothy L. Webb as a judgment debtor on October 3, 2016.” The clerk’s transcript in this appeal does not contain the notice of motion or the “amendment” filed in connection with the underlying motion. Instead, the clerk’s transcript contains the memorandum of points and authorities Swanegan filed in support