Court Opinion

ID: 9940276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 20:02:35.395084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:42.865162
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/13/24 Cooper v. Friederick 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 CHARLES COOPER,                                                   B324895

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                (Los Angeles County
                                                                   Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                      MC027920)

 MICHAEL FRIEDERICK et al.,

           Defendants and Respondents.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Stephen Morgan, Judge. Affirmed.

         Charles Cooper, pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

    McClaugherty & Associates, Jay McClaugherty and Allison
Moonhyung Lee for Defendants and Respondents.

                                     ___________________
      Plaintiff and appellant Charles Cooper appeals from an
order denying discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure
section 473, subdivision (b), following a judgment of dismissal in
favor of defendants and respondents Michael Friederick and
Spencer Friederick.1 We conclude the record is inadequate to
review the trial court’s exercise of discretion. Therefore, we
affirm.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On April 23, 2018, Cooper filed a complaint for personal
injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The complaint has
not been included in the appellate record. The Friedericks filed
motions to compel responses to interrogatories, for production of
documents, and to compel an independent medical examination.
Cooper filed no opposition, and the trial court granted the
motions.
       Cooper filed a notice of limited scope representation.
Neither Cooper, nor his attorney appeared on September 2, 2021,
for a hearing on a motion for sanctions. Cooper’s attorney
claimed there had been a calendaring mistake.
       Neither Cooper, nor his attorney appeared for a final status
conference on March 2, 2022. On the court’s own motion, the
final status conference was continued to the trial date of
March 11, 2022. The court also issued an order to show cause
regarding sanctions for failing to appear on March 2, 2022.
Cooper’s attorney filed a substitution of attorney withdrawing

      1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure unless otherwise stated.

                                 2
from the limited representation, after which Cooper represented
himself. Cooper filed no trial documents, did not appear for trial
on March 11, 2022, and did not contact the court clerk regarding
his absence. On March 11, 2022, the trial court dismissed the
complaint without prejudice.
       Five months later, on August 8, 2022, Cooper filed a motion
to vacate the dismissal under section 473, subdivision (b), on the
ground that he failed to appear on March 11, 2022, due to a
medical emergency. Cooper submitted his declaration stating
that he failed to appear on March 11, 2022, due to sudden slip of
two bulging discs in his lower back and two bulging discs in his
neck that caused unbearable pain. He also submitted the
declaration of a home care provider who stated that she received
a call from Cooper at 5:15 a.m. needing immediate assistance.
She helped him to lie down and provided a sleep aid.
       The Friedericks opposed the motion to vacate the dismissal.
Their attorney declared that among other delays and lack of
cooperation with discovery, Cooper had not appeared for the
medical examination. Cooper filed a reply to the opposition.
       After a hearing on August 30, 2022, the trial court denied
the motion to vacate the dismissal. No reporter’s transcript or
settled statement of the proceedings has been provided on appeal.
The trial court issued a statement of decision noting that the
action was almost four years old. The court concluded that the
slipped discs would be considered “surprise,” as Cooper was
injured without negligence on his part. However, the complaint
was not dismissed solely for failing to appear on March 11, 2022,
but also for his failure to appear on March 2, 2022, which he had
not explained. No trial documents had been filed, so Cooper was
not ready for trial. While his failure to appear on March 11,

                                3
2022, may have been due to surprise, it was also patent that
Cooper was not prepared for trial and had failed to explain his
nonappearance on March 2, 2022.
      Cooper filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial
court denied. Cooper filed a timely notice of appeal.

                          DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

      In general, the trial court’s ruling on a motion for
discretionary relief under section 473, subdivision (b) is reviewed
on appeal for an abuse of discretion. (Zamora v. Clayborn
Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.)

Inadequate Record

       The appellate record does not include a reporter’s
transcript of the hearing on the motion to vacate or a suitable
substitute, such as a settled statement under California Rules of
Court, rule 8.137. We conclude the record is insufficient to
demonstrate reversible error under California law.
       In a variety of cases, appellate courts have refused to
address the merits of an appellant’s contention on appeal when
no reporter’s transcript or suitable substitute has been provided
for a relevant hearing, because we presume on appeal that the
trial court’s judgment or order is correct and the appellant must
affirmatively show error. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.,
Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186–187.) “ ‘In the absence of a
contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the

                                 4
trial court’s action will be made by 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.” ’ [Citation.]”
(Ibid.)
       “A reporter’s transcript may not be necessary if the appeal
involves legal issues requiring de novo review. [Citation.] In
many cases involving the substantial evidence or abuse of
discretion standard of review, however, a reporter’s transcript or
an agreed or settled statement of the proceedings will be
indispensable.” (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2016)
5 Cal.App.5th 476, 483.) If the record is inadequate to allow
meaningful review, “ ‘ “the appellant defaults and the decision of
the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ [Citation.] ‘. . . [Appellant]
has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.]
Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that
the issue be resolved against [appellant].’ [Citation.]” (Foust v.
San Jose Construction Co., Inc., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at
p. 187.)
       Without a record of the trial court proceedings that took
place on August 30, 2022, concerning the motion to vacate, we
cannot review the arguments, concessions, or information
presented to the trial court. We do not know what statements
were made by the parties or the trial court about setting aside
the dismissal of the complaint. The record is insufficient to show
any additional evidence presented or offers of proof that were
made concerning Cooper’s appearance for the scheduled medical
examination or his failure to appear at the final status conference
on March 2, 2022. There is no basis to review the trial court’s
exercise of its discretion. We presume the post-judgment order is

                                 5
correct unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise,
and therefore, no showing of an abuse of discretion has been
made on appeal.

                        DISPOSITION

      The order denying the motion to vacate the dismissal under
section 473, subdivision (b), is affirmed. Respondents Michael
Friederick and Spencer Friederick are awarded their costs on
appeal.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                         MOOR, J.

We concur:

                 BAKER, Acting P. J.

                 KIM, J.

                                6