Court Opinion

ID: 9941797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 22:02:01.439882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:03.039919
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/16/24 Luehring v. Metropolitan State Hospital 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FREDERICK LUEHRING,                                          B321400

     Plaintiff and Appellant,                                (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.
         v.                                                  21STCV09000)

METROPLITAN STATE
HOSPITAL et al.,

     Defendant and Respondent.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Holly J. Fujie, Judge. Affirmed in part and
dismissed in part.
      Frederick Luehring, self-represented litigant, for Plaintiff
and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Jodi L. Cleesattle, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Iveta Ovsepyan, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    I.     INTRODUCTION

     Plaintiff Frederick Luehring appeals from the judgment of
dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer to his first
amended complaint without leave to amend.1 On appeal,
plaintiff appears to challenge the trial court’s ruling denying his
motion for relief from the claim-filing requirements of the
Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), its ruling
sustaining the demurrer, and its ruling striking a “UCC lien” he
placed on Lee’s real property after it entered judgment against
him (plaintiff). Because plaintiff has failed to provide an
adequate record on appeal to review his claims concerning the
court’s rulings on his motion for relief from the claim-filing
requirements of the Government Claims Act and on defendants’
demurrer, we affirm the judgment. Because plaintiff did not file
a notice of appeal from the order striking his UCC lien, we do not
have jurisdiction over that claim and dismiss it.

1     Defendants are Metropolitan State Hospital (the State of
California), Eunmee Lee, and Maybel Manlagnit.

                                 2
                     II.   BACKGROUND

     According to his opening brief, plaintiff brought an action
against defendants after they improperly took money from him
and applied it to the cost of his care while he was a patient at
Metropolitan State Hospital. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 72812.)
Plaintiff intended to use that money to pay “back taxes” owed on
his home to avoid a tax sale. Plaintiff lost his home and other
property due to defendants’ actions.
      On September 15, 2021, plaintiff filed the first amended
complaint asserting causes of action for negligence, fraud,
professional negligence, conversion, and dishonor of presentation.
On October 29, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the
claim-filing requirements of the Government Claims Act. On

2      Welfare and Institutions Code section 7281 provides in
part, “There is at each institution under the jurisdiction of the
State Department of State Hospitals and at each institution
under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Developmental
Services, a fund known as the patients’ personal deposit fund.
Any funds coming into the possession of the superintendent,
belonging to any patient in that institution, shall be deposited in
the name of that patient in the patients’ personal deposit fund,
except that if a guardian or conservator of the estate is appointed
for the patient then the guardian or conservator shall have the
right to demand and receive the funds. Only for patients at an
institution under the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Developmental Services, whenever the sum belonging to any one
patient, deposited in the patients’ personal deposit fund, exceeds
the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), the excess may be applied
to the payment of the care, support, maintenance, and medical
attention of the patient.”

                                 3
November 23, 2021, defendants filed a demurrer to the first
amended complaint.
       The trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for relief from the
Government Claims Act’s claim-filing requirements and
sustained without leave to amend defendants’ demurrer.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court to
reconsider that ruling. The court denied the reconsideration
motion, and entered the judgment of dismissal on March 23,
2022.
       On April 18, 2022, plaintiff placed a UCC lien on Lee’s real
property.
       On May 17, 2022, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment of dismissal.
       On May 18, 2022, Lee filed a petition for an ex parte order
to show cause why plaintiff’s UCC lien should not be stricken and
released and for an order striking and releasing the lien (OSC
petition).

                       III.   DISCUSSION

A.    Inadequate Record

      Plaintiff appears to contend the trial court erred when it
denied his motion for relief from the claim-filing requirements of
the Government Claims Act and sustained defendants’ demurrer
to the first amended complaint.
      “A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be
correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are
indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric

                                 4
Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956.) An appellant must
affirmatively establish error by an adequate record. (Jameson v.
Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) In the absence of a proper
record on appeal, the appealable judgment or order is presumed
correct and must be affirmed. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d
1281, 1295–1296.) Plaintiff failed to provide an adequate record
on appeal by failing to include in the record: (a) plaintiff’s first
amended complaint; (b) plaintiff’s motion for relief from the
claim-filing requirements of the Government Claims Act or
defendants’ opposition to that motion3; (c) defendants’ demurrer
to the first amended complaint and supporting documents,
plaintiff’s opposition to the demurrer, or defendants’ reply in
support of the demurrer; or (d) a reporter’s transcript of the
hearing on defendants’ demurrer. Nor did plaintiff file a brief in
response to this court’s inquiry regarding the adequacy of the
record on appeal. Instead, he sought judicial notice of only some
of the documents that he failed to include in the record. We deny
the request for judicial notice as untimely. (See Estate of Sanchez
(2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 331, 337 [court of appeal denied untimely
request for judicial notice].) Moreover, even if we granted
plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, the record on appeal is still
inadequate because the request for judicial notice does not
include plaintiff’s motion for relief from the claim-filing
requirements of the Government Claims Act or defendants’
opposition to that motion; defendants’ documents filed in support
of their demurrer to the first amended complaint, plaintiff’s
opposition to the demurrer, or defendants’ reply in support of the
demurrer; or a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on defendants’

3     Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of his motion.

                                  5
demurrer. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on the grounds
that plaintiff has failed to establish error by an adequate record.4

B.    Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s UCC Lien Claim

       Plaintiff contends the trial court “erred in finding that they
had the standing and authority to strike [his] private UCC lien as
there is no [substantial] evidence to support that finding.”
       “[T]he timely filing of an appropriate notice of appeal or its
legal equivalent is an absolute prerequisite to the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.” (Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico
(1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 670 (Hollister); Beltram v. Appellate
Department (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 711, 714 (Beltram) [“failure to
file a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be
remedied”].) Absent a timely notice of appeal, an appellate court
“lacks all power to consider the appeal on its merits and must
dismiss” it. (Hollister, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 674; Marshall v.
Webster (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 275, 284 & fn. 10.) “[A]lthough
failure to file a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect that
cannot be remedied, once a notice is filed it is to be construed

4     To the extent that plaintiff’s opening brief can be construed
as also claiming the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion
to reconsider its rulings on plaintiff’s request to be relieved from
the claim-filing requirements of the Government Claims Act and
on defendants’ demurrer, it fails for the same reason—plaintiff’s
appellate record does not include the motion for reconsideration,
defendants’ opposition to that motion, or plaintiff’s supporting
reply; the first amended complaint; or necessary filings
concerning his motion for relief from the Government Claims Act
or defendants’ demurrer. (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at
pp. 1295–1296.)

                                 6
liberally in favor of its sufficiency.” (Beltram, supra, 66
Cal.App.3d at p. 714.)
      The record on appeal does not contain either an order from
the court striking plaintiff’s UCC lien or a notice of appeal from
any such order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s appeal from the trial
court’s claimed order striking his UCC lien is dismissed.5
(Hollister, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 674.)

5     Moreover, plaintiff failed to include in the record on appeal
the court’s order striking the lien or a reporter’s transcript of the
hearing on Lee’s OSC petition. Thus, even if we had jurisdiction
over this contention, we would reject it because the record on
appeal is inadequate. (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at
pp. 1295–1296.)

                                  7
                        IV.   DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff’s appeal from the trial
court’s order striking his UCC lien is dismissed. Defendants are
awarded their costs on appeal.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                          KIM, J.

We concur:

             MOOR, Acting P. J.

             LEE, J.*

*     Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                  8