Filed 10/30/13 Washington-Allen v. Richardson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MARBELLA WASHINGTON-ALLEN,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

EDDIE RICHARDSON et al.,

Defendants and Respondents. B243431

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC055508)

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ross M. Klein, Judge. Affirmed.

Marbella Washington-Allen, in pro. per.; and Ruth Rose for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of George T. Kelly a nd George T. Kelly for Defendants and Respondents.

* * * * * * * * * *2 Plaintiff and appellant Marbella Washin gton-Allen, appearing in propria persona, appeals from the judgment entered, following a court trial, in favor of defendants and respondents Eddie Richardson, Susie Kemp a nd Jenny Williams. Plaintiff argues the trial court failed to consider all of the evidence pr esented at trial, specifically that the court disregarded her expert’s testimony. Plainti ff also argues the trial court’s statement of decision, including the discussion of the cred ibility of the evidence offered by plaintiff, reveals judicial bias that deprived of her a fair trial. We affirm. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the judgment entered in favor

of defendants. Plaintiff submitted a clerk’s tr anscript which consists, in its entirety, of the superior court’s civil case summary inde x, the trial court’s one-page decision dated June 29, 2012, defendants’ notice of the cour t’s ruling, the judgment entered thereon and plaintiff’s notice of appeal. To the extent plaintiff’s opening brief before this court contains a statement of facts, defendants re sponded in their brief that it is, in most respects, accurate, even if incomplete. We endeavor to provide a summary of the

material facts from these limited sources. In January 2011, plaintiff filed a compla int against defendants stating claims for assault and battery arising from an incident that occurred at the parties’ church. Defendants answered. The case proceeded to a court trial in May 2012, and took place over the course of two days. Plaintiff was repr esented by counsel at trial and testified in the case, along with several witnesses, including plainti ff’s doctor (Dr. Simpson).

The trial court ruled in favor of defendants, finding that plaintiff failed to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. Of particul ar significance, the court explained, in its written ruling, the “oral te stimony of the Plaintiff and her witnesses is

minimized and counterbalance d by a lack of any indepe ndent supporting evidence.” And, the “Defendants’ eviden ce eviscerates the Plaintiff’s position.” The court expressly

found the “defense witn esses to be more credible than the Plaintiff’s witnesses based on their demeanor, articulate and consistent answ ers. The Plaintiff, in stark contrast, had

selective recollection and was evasive.”3 Plaintiff appealed, arguing what can only be described as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evid ence in support of the judgment a nd to the trial court’s resolution and weighing of the credibility of the parties’ respective witne sses. Plaintiff contends the court’s decision reflects judicial bias in fa vor of the defendants and their witnesses. In her opening brief, plaintiff provides no citations to the record in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1 )(C). Plaintiff’s designation of a clerk’s transcript reflects she did not designate any documents to be included in the clerk’s transcript except the judgment, the notice of appeal and desi gnation of transcript form. Plaintiff also elected to proceed on appeal without any reporter’s transcript of the trial proceedings from which appeals. On the court form, plainti ff checked the box providing, “I elect to proceed . . . [¶] . . . WITHOU T a record of the oral proceedings in the superior court. I understand that without a r ecord of the oral proceedings in the superior court, the Court of Appeal will not be able to consider what was said during those proceedings in determining whether an error was made in the superior court proceedings.” We begin with the well-esta blished foundational premise that “ ‘[a] judgment or

order of the lower court is presumed correct . All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on ma tters as to which the reco rd 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.’ [Citations.]” ( Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, second italics added.) Further, unless otherwise shown, “it is pres umed that the court followed the law.” ( Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co . (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 563. ) And, where, as here, “there has been a trial by the co urt without a jury it is ordina rily presumed that the court based its findings only upon admissible evidence.” ( Mike Davidov Co. v. Issod (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 597, 606.) Plaintiff wholly failed to affirmatively sh ow error or any grou nds for relief. An argument that is not supported with specific citations to the record may be deemed waived. (See Ojavan Investors, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission (1997) 544 Cal.App.4th 373, 391; accord, Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; see also McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 512, 522 [“reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment”].) Plaintiff’s failure to provide any record of the proceedings or evidence received at trial mandates a rejection of he r appeal, as we are unable to fairly evaluate plaintiff’s contention regarding the evidence. (See Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc . (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132 [rejection of the defendants’ claim based on failure to provide an adequate record to the court] ; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) “Where no reporter’s transcript has been pr ovided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters . To put it another way, it is pr esumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the ab sence of error. [Citation.] The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attack s a judgment but supplies no repo rter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence.” ( Estate of

Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 987, 992; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, § 360, pp. 415-41 6 [no review of sufficiency of the evidence claim “unless an adequate record is brought up”].) Moreover, assuming for the sake of argument we were able to reach the merits of plaintiff’s appeal, the gravamen of plaintiff’s argument is he r dissatisfaction with the trial

court’s assessment of the evidence and witn esses, implied finding that Dr. Simpson’s testimony was not credible or not entitled to much weight, and ultimate conclusion the evidence and witnesses presente d by defendants were more s ubstantial and credible on the issues before it. An appellate court defers to the trier of fact on issues of credibility. “[N]either conflicts in the evidence nor ‘ “testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion . . . justif[ies ] the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the [trier of fact] to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.” ’ [Citation.]” ( Oldham v. Kizer (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1065; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra , Appeal, § 365, pp. 421-5 423.) Plaintiff has not stated or substan tiated any basis justif ying a modification or reversal of the judgment.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Each pa rty to bear its own costs on appeal.

GRIMES, J.

We concur: RUBIN, Acting P. J.

FLIER, J.