Blue v. The Veggie Grill, Inc.

LUI, P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 21STCV26331 Michael E. Whitaker, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Theida Salazar and Theida Salazar for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Veatch Carlson, Serena L. Nervez, and Robert T. Mackey for Defendant and Respondent.

LUI, P. J.

Plaintiff Dionza Blue (Blue) filed a Los Angeles County Superior Court civil lawsuit purportedly based on a fall Blue suffered while inside a restaurant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant The Veggie Grill, Inc. (Veggie Grill). Blue appeals, represented by counsel. Blue's utter failure to comply with the basic rules of appellate practice and omission of a sufficient record for our review results in the forfeiture of his claims on appeal. We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

I. Facts

The parties agree in their respective appellate briefs that Blue went inside Veggie Grill and ordered food. According to Blue's opening brief, while waiting for his food, Blue leaned against a table, which collapsed. Blue fell and suffered injuries. Blue claims Veggie Grill was negligent.

Blue gives no statement of facts or citations to the record. Blue's arguments consist of repeated conclusory assertions. Blue fails to recite the pertinent elements of negligence or the legal theory at play here, and provides no reasoned analysis.

II. Proceedings

The register of actions, included in the clerk's transcript, shows Blue filed a civil complaint on July 19, 2021, and an amended complaint on September 13, 2021. Veggie Grill's motion for summary judgment was heard and granted on May 3, 2023. Judgment was entered for Veggie Grill on May 25, 2023. Blue filed a notice of appeal on June 30, 2023. Apart from the register of actions, the clerk's transcript contains only the notice of entry of the May 25, 2023 judgment, two copies of the judgment, the notice of appeal, and the designation of record on appeal.

Missing from the clerk's transcript are the pleadings, the summary judgment motion and supporting documents and exhibits, the opposition and supporting documents and exhibits, and a reporter's transcript of the hearing on the motion.

In its respondent's brief, Veggie Grill alerted Blue to the deficiencies in his opening brief and clerk's transcript. Blue did not file a reply brief or seek to augment the record on appeal.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, a lower court's order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 619.) It is the appellant's burden to overcome this presumption of correctness by affirmatively showing error. (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 556-557.) "This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim. The appellant must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record." (Id. at p. 557.) Thus, an appellant forfeits issues unsupported by reasoned argument or citations to legal authority and the record. (L.O. v. Kilrain, supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at p. 620.)

Blue's opening brief is procedurally defective. As the appellant, Blue is obligated to support any challenge to summary judgment with a factual summary with references to the record, a complete record, cogent argument, and citations to relevant authorities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204.) Blue misses all these marks and therefore forfeits his challenges to the summary judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Veggie Grill is to recover its costs on appeal.

We concur: CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.