Court Opinion

ID: 9397615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 18:04:13.344192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.259095
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/25/23 707 East Ocean Blvd. LP v. Rogers 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 707 EAST OCEAN                                                    B320403
 BOULEVARD LP,
                                                                  Los Angeles County
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Super. Ct. No. 21LBCV00418

           v.

 JOSHUA ROGERS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Michael P. Vicencia, Judge. Affirmed.

     Benjamin Porter Law Group and Elijah Porter for
Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    ___________________________
       Defendant and appellant Joshua Rogers seeks reversal of
the unlawful detainer judgment entered against him on a single
ground: the special verdict form did not include all facts
necessary to establish his liability. Defendant fails to satisfy his
burden of showing in his appellate brief, with record citations,
that he timely raised this issue in the trial court below. We
therefore affirm.
                          BACKGROUND
       We draw the following background information from the
limited record defendant provided on appeal. The record consists
of a clerk’s transcript containing only a portion of the trial record.
From the clerk’s transcript, we discern that the oral proceedings
before the trial court were not transcribed. There is no settled
statement of the trial proceedings. We have very little
information in the record before us about what happened at trial.
       Defendant rented a housing unit from plaintiff 707 East
Ocean Boulevard LP. Plaintiff discovered defendant was using
the unit as a short-term rental. Plaintiff gave defendant a
three-day notice to quit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1161, subdivision 4. Among other things, the notice
stated defendant’s use of the unit was unlawful because plaintiff
had not registered his short-term rental as required by
section 5.77.030 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. Defendant
refused to quit and plaintiff sued.
       The matter proceeded to a jury trial. A special verdict form
was prepared. It is unclear from the record who prepared it. The
minute order states that “[o]utside the presence of the jury,
verdict form is discussed.” Since there is no reporter’s transcript,
we do not know what was discussed.

                                  2
       The minute order also states “a verdict form along with
jury instructions and admitted exhibits is sent into the jury
deliberations room.” Defendant says in his appellate brief that
the trial court modified the special verdict form shortly after jury
deliberations began to specify a range of dates during which
plaintiff alleged defendant used his unit as a short-term rental.
But defendant gave us no record citation showing that happened.
The only citations defendant provides in support of his contention
are the page of the minute order that says “verdict form is
discussed” and an assertion in a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) he later filed in the trial
court in which he contended the court modified the verdict form.
       On February 25, 2022, the jury returned its verdict with
the following three findings: (1) defendant used his unit to
conduct short-term rentals without registering with the City of
Long Beach between October 21, 2020 and January 24, 2021;
(2) he was duly served with a notice to vacate; and (3) plaintiff
suffered $35,000 damages as a result of defendant’s conduct.
       The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff on March 17,
2022.
       On April 1, 2022, defendant filed a motion for JNOV.
Defendant argued the jury’s special verdict findings did not
support the judgment because the Long Beach Municipal Code
did not require short-term rental registration for the period the
jury found he had been using his unit as a short-term rental. The
trial court denied defendant’s motion. Defendant timely
appealed.
                            DISCUSSION
       Plaintiff filed no brief in this appeal. We therefore decide
the appeal “on the record, the opening brief, and any oral

                                 3
argument by the appellant.” (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.220(a)(2).)
        A respondent’s failure to file a brief does not relieve the
appellant of its burdens on appeal. (In re Marriage of F.M. &
M.M. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 106, 110, fn. 1.) The appellant bears
the burden “to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented
to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error
that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018)
5 Cal.5th 594, 609.)
        Not only must the record be adequate; the appellant must
show entitlement to relief by citation to the record. (See Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) An appellant is deemed to
have forfeited appellate review of a claim of error by failing to
show with record citations that an objection was timely raised in
the trial court. “When an appellant’s brief makes no reference to
the pages of the record where a point can be found, an appellate
court need not search through the record in an effort to discover
the point purportedly made. [Citations.] We can simply deem
the contention to lack foundation and, thus, to be forfeited.” (In
re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406–407; see also Dietz v.
Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799–800
(Dietz) [same].)
        Here, defendant does not argue that he made a timely
objection to the special verdict form before the trial court
discharged the jury. As discussed below, it was necessary for
defendant to have done so. His failure to demonstrate he did
forfeits appellate review of the issue.
        Defendant cites Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th
316 (Saxena) for the proposition that “[t]he proper way to remedy
. . . a defective [special] verdict is to grant the defendant’s motion

                                  4
for JNOV.” In Saxena, the court held that the
defendant-appellant had preserved his objection to the form of
special verdict by raising the underlying legal issue in a
demurrer, in his objection to a related jury instruction, and in his
motion for new trial. (Id. at pp. 327–328.) We are not persuaded
Saxena is good authority based on which we might find defendant
preserved the issue here.
          We think the better rule is stated in Taylor v. Nabors
Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Taylor), which
held that a defendant-appellant had waived its challenge to a
special verdict form by not objecting to the form before the trial
court discharged the jury, even though the defendant later filed a
motion for JNOV on the same ground asserted on appeal. (Id. at
p. 1242.) The Taylor court explained that “ ‘ “[f]ailure to object to
a verdict before the discharge of a jury and to request
clarification or further deliberation precludes a party from later
questioning the validity of that verdict if the alleged defect was
apparent at the time the verdict was rendered and could have
been corrected.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘The obvious purpose for
requiring an objection to a defective verdict before a jury is
discharged is to provide it an opportunity to cure the defect by
further deliberation. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘The rule is designed
to advance efficiency and deter gamesmanship.’ [Citation.]
‘ “ ‘ “ ‘ “If any other rule were to obtain, the party would in most
cases be careful to be silent as to his objections until it would be
too late to obviate them . . . .” ’ ” ’ ” ’ ” (Ibid., italics omitted.)
          The Taylor special verdict form contained a “typo” that
instructed jurors not to make findings about essential elements of
the plaintiff’s harassment claim, including causation. (Taylor,
supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1241.) The jury followed the

                                  5
instruction and did not make at least two findings necessary to
support judgment on the cause of action. The trial court
nonetheless rejected the defendant’s motion for JNOV because
the defendant raised the issue of the defect only after the jury
was discharged. (Id. at pp. 1242–1243.) The Taylor court
distinguished Saxena, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at page 328, on the
grounds that the defendant-appellant there had raised the issue
before the jury was discharged. (Taylor, at p. 1243.)
       We agree with the Taylor court that any objection to the
form of special verdict must be raised in the trial court before the
jury is discharged. Permitting later challenges would have the
effect of giving a defendant a free option for a new trial if the
verdict rendered on a deficient form is unfavorable. (Cf. In re
Urayna L. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 883, 886 [applying rule of
waiver where failure to do so “would permit a party to trifle with
the courts by standing silently by, thus permitting the
proceedings to reach a conclusion in which the party could
acquiesce if favorable and avoid if unfavorable”].)
       Here, defendant argues that the special verdict form, like
the one in Taylor, failed to establish an essential element of
plaintiff’s claim against him. But defendant does not assert in
his appellate brief that he raised this issue with the trial court
before the jury was discharged, much less provide relevant record
citations. This failure defeats his appeal. (See In re S.C., supra,
138 Cal.App.4th at pp. 406–407 [failure to provide record
citations demonstrating preservation of claimed error forfeits
issue]; Dietz, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at pp. 799–800 [same].) In
his appellate brief, the only time defendant says he raised the
issue was in his April 1, 2022 motion for JNOV—a motion he
filed more than a month after the jury rendered its verdict and

                                 6
15 days after the trial court entered judgment on the jury’s
verdict. And, as stated above, that record citation is insufficient
to demonstrate error.
      All we know from the record citations defendant provides is
that the trial court conferred with counsel about the special
verdict form before it was sent to the jury. Without knowing
what comments or objections defendant made at that time, we
will not assume he expressed an objection on the grounds he later
raised in his motion for JNOV and now on appeal.
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed. No costs are awarded on appeal.

                        GRIMES, Acting P. J.

      WE CONCUR:

                        WILEY, J.

                        VIRAMONTES, J.

                                7