Filed 8/12/14 Wong v . Lee CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

LINA WONG,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

THO MAS LEE,

Defendant and Respondent. B251401

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC062916)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dan T.
Oki, Judge. Affirmed.
Lina Wong

, in Pro. Per. , for Plaintiff and Appellant
Wong & Mak, Steven W. Hashimoto , Fred A. Wong, for Defendant and Respondent.2

The present case involve s the purchase of a medical center by appellant Lina Wong (“Wong”) from respondent Thomas Lee (“Lee”). Subsequent to the purchase

, Wong sued Lee alleging breach of a written contract and fraud. Both parties having
waived their right to a jury trial, the case proceeded as a court trial. After Wong rested

her case in chief

, Lee moved for a judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

section 631.8. T he court granted the motion and on July 10, 2013, entered judgment in

favor of Lee. A motion for leave to amend the complaint to conform to proof was heard
after judgment was entered and was denied. A motion for new trial was also denie d by

the court. No reporter’s transcript or an authorized substitute was provided to this
reviewing court.

Ina dequacy of the Record on Appeal
Wong, as the appellant

, has the responsibility to ensure that an adequate record of
the trial is presented to the reviewing court. The failure to present an adequate record
precludes an appellant from raising any evidentiary issues on appeal. ( Co senza v.

Kramer (19 84) 152 Cal. App

. 3d 1100, 1102.) In other words, a bsent an adequate record

, the appellate court cannot reach the merits of any claim of error which requires a review

of the evidence. ( Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574

- 575; Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App. 4t h 651

, 657 .)

I n numerous situations

, appellate courts have declined to reach the merits of an appeal because the lack of a reporter’s transcript or an au thorized substitute made it
impossibl e to do so. (See, e.g.

, Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3 d 257, 273

- 274
[transfer order]; Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295

- 1296 [hearing on motion for attorney’s fees]; Ballard v. Uribe

, supra , 41 Cal.3d at pp. 574

- 575 [new trial motion
hearing]; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 91, 102 [hearing to determine whether counsel was waived and minor consented to informal adjudication]; Bo eken v. Philip Morris Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1640, 1672 [ruling on a requested jury instruction]; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App. 4th 440, 447 [trial transcript when

attorney ’s fees sought]; In re Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal. App.4th 973, 992 [surcharge3

hearing]; Hodges v. Mark , supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 657 [nonsuit motion];
Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal

. App.4th 1445, 1448 [monetary

sanct i ons hearing]; Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1536 [reporter’s transcript fail ed to reflect contents of jury instruction s ]; Buckhart v. San

Francisco Resid e ntial Rent e tc.
, Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App. 3d 1032, 1036 [heari ng on Code

Civ. Proc

. § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 383, 385

- 386 [ hearing
on a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88

Cal. App. 3d 706, 713

- 714 [demurre r hearing] ; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230
Cal.App.2d 70, 71

- 73 [ transcript of argument to jury]; Ehman v

. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App. 2d 460, 462 [failure to secure either a reporter’s transcript or a settled statement
as to offers of proof]; Wet s el v. Garibaldi (195 8) 159 Cal.App. 2d 4, 10 [order confirming
arbitration award]. ) The failure of Wong in the present appeal to provide a reporter’s transcript or an

authorized substitute for same makes it impossible for this court to properly opine on the
major issue s raise d on appeal by Wong, that is

, whether the trial court committed
prejudicial error i n granting Lee’s Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8 motion for
judgment , and the denia l of her motion for a new trial, both of which require a review of

the evidence. 1 T herefore, the failure by Wong to provide an adequate record on appeal

warrants affirmance of the aforesaid challenged rulings made by the trial court. 2

1 As to Wong’s contention that the court erred in not allowing her to amend her complaint after judgment ha d been entered

, a pleading cannot be amended unless the judgment is first vacated. ( See Issa v. Alz a mmar (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4.) Further, since the trial court denied the motion for n ew trial (which we cannot review due to the inadequate record presented by Wong)

, th e issue of amending the complaint is
moot.

2 In view of this court’s ruling , we need not entertain the other issues raised in the Respondent’s Brief.4 Disposition The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Lee is awarded his costs on appeal.

NOT T O BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MINK, J. 

We concur:

TURNER, P.J.

KRIEGLER, J.

 Retired j udge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.