Western Sages Foundation v. Ku CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 Western Sages Foundation v. Ku CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
WESTERN SAGES FOUNDATION, B329881
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Los Angeles County
v. Super. Ct. No. 21GDCV00984)
LAN HUA KU,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Joel L. Lofton, Judge. Affirmed.
Tatone Law, Michelangelo Tatone, and Xiaona Ding for
Defendant and Appellant.
Bayley Law Firm and Guy R. Bayley for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
_________________________________
In January 2023, the trial court commenced a jury trial on
plaintiff Western Sages Foundation’s (Western Sages) claim to
recover unpaid rent owed by defendant Lan Hua Ku under a
commercial lease. After Western Sages presented its case-in-
chief and Ku testified on her own behalf, the court granted Ku’s
request for judicial notice of “the Los Angeles County Covid-19
moratorium” (Moratorium). Western Sages agreed that it would
not seek to recover any rent protected by the Moratorium.
The court then granted Western Sages’ “motion for a directed
verdict in the amount of $18,150.00, less the $2,000 security
deposit as offset, for a total directed verdict of $16,150.”
The court discharged the jury and stayed entry of judgment to
allow Ku to submit a brief addressing whether Western Sages’
entire lawsuit was barred by the Moratorium. Ku later filed a
“post-trial brief,” arguing that the Moratorium barred Western
Sages’ action for repayment of unpaid rent.
In February 2023, the court entered judgment in Western
Sages’ favor and against Ku for $16,150.
Ku appeals. She argues the court erred when it entered a
directed verdict in Western Sages’ favor because the Moratorium
barred Western Sages’ entire action to recover unpaid rent. As
we explain, we must affirm the judgment because Ku has not
provided us an adequate record to review her claims of error on
appeal.
We presume that an appealed judgment is correct.
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) To
overcome this presumption, the appellant must affirmatively
demonstrate error and provide an adequate record on appeal.
(Ibid.) “ ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all
presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by
2
the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented
to the court below which would have authorized the order
complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were
presented.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that
if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant
defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ ”
(Ibid.) It is, therefore, the appellant’s burden to provide an
adequate record, and her failure to do so requires the reviewing
court to resolve the appeal against her. (Ibid.)
The record on appeal does not include copies of the
operative pleading, Western Sages’ motion for a directed verdict,
Ku’s request for judicial notice of the Moratorium, or the
reporter’s transcript or a settled statement memorializing the
proceedings below, including the trial at which the court entered
the directed verdict in Western Sages’ favor. We therefore lack a
record of the evidence that was presented at trial, including any
testimony or documentary evidence about the terms of the
underlying commercial lease and the details of Ku’s occupancy of
Western Sages’ property, such as her history of paying rent under
the commercial lease. We also lack any transcripts or other court
documents showing why the court rejected Ku’s claim that
Western Sages’ entire lawsuit was barred by the Moratorium.
Although Ku has attached to her opening brief what she claims
are two versions of the Moratorium that are relevant to Western
Sages’ claim to recover unpaid rent, the documents do not include
file stamps indicating they were filed in the trial court. Ku does
not explain whether the documents attached to her opening brief
were considered by the court before it entered judgment in
Western Sages’ favor.
3
As the Supreme Court explained in Jameson, the “lack of a
verbatim record of [trial court proceedings] will frequently be
fatal to a litigant’s ability to have his or her claims of trial court
error resolved on the merits by an appellate court.” (Jameson,
supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 608.) That is true here. Without a record
of the evidence that Western Sages presented below to support its
claim to recover unpaid rent from Ku and its motion for a
directed verdict on that claim, as well as a record of the court’s
decision rejecting Ku’s affirmative defense based on the
Moratorium, we cannot meaningfully review the court’s decision
to grant the motion for a directed verdict and enter judgment in
Western Sages’ favor. Accordingly, we must presume the record
supports the court’s decision and affirm the judgment. (Id. at
p. 609.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Western Sages shall recover its
costs on appeal.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J.
WILEY, J.
4