Z.C. v. Zhan CA6

Filed 7/1/24 Z.C. v. Zhan CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Z.C., H051499 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CV01503)

v.

WEITING ZHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Weiting Zhan, representing herself, appeals the issuance of a civil harassment restraining order against her. Zhan has not provided an adequate record or opening brief to enable meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm. It is well settled that a judgment is presumed correct and “ ‘error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) For that reason, an appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295 (Maria P.).) Where the appellant fails to do so, a reviewing court is required to resolve the matter against the appellant. (Id. at pp. 1295–1296.) We are not permitted to speculate as to the contents of missing portions of the record or issues appellant may have raised below. (Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852–855.)

(1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1051–1052.) Instead, our review is limited to the record before this court. (People v. Neilson (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534.) Similar rules apply to an appellant’s opening brief, which must provide a summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record, include record citations in support of factual assertions, identify the relief sought, and explain why the order appealed from is appealable. (Cal. Rules Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C).) A reviewing court may not consider any statements of fact not supported by the record, or any claims of error based on unsupported statements. (McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 947.) Briefs must also provide argument and legal authority to support their contentions: “[w]hen an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 (Benach).) Zhan has failed to comply with these requirements. The record before this court consists only of (1) the restraining order; (2) Zhan’s “Response to Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders”; and (3) special interrogatories Zhan claims to have propounded. There is no transcript or other documentation of the hearing or other oral proceedings in the trial court. An appellant is required to provide a reporter’s transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement for any issue that “requires consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) From the limited record before this court, we are able to discern only the following basic facts. Following a hearing on October 9, 2023, which Zhan attended, a restraining order protecting Z.C.2 was issued against Zhan on October 12, 2023, set to expire on October 8, 2024. The restraining order stated that it was based on “unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or stalking.” Among other things, the restraining order