Court Opinion

ID: 9894169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:04:06.340426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:50.670212
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/31/23 Marks v. Gouett 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 DEBBIE MARKS,                                                    B318945

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. BC524946
           v.
                                                                  consol. with No. BC525507)
 LAURIE GOUETT et al.,

           Defendants;

 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,

           Intervener and Respondent.

      APPEAL from judgment and order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Bernie C. LaForteza, Judge. Affirmed.
      The Injury Law Center and Louis Krass for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
      Michael Sullivan & Associates and Megan B. Mavis for
Intervener and Respondent.
                 _____________________________
       Debbie Marks appeals from an order denying a motion to
vacate and the underlying judgment. However, the record on
appeal does not include the motion to vacate and fails to include
key pleadings from the trial court docket. We affirm because we
have no basis for meaningful appellate review.
                           DISCUSSION
I.     The record is deficient
       The record in this case is incomplete. Therefore, we have
no basis to understand the underlying facts and procedural
history in this case. Moreover, this case appears to be affected by
multiple suits, and we do not have a sufficient record to
understand the other suits affecting this appeal. Nonetheless, we
set out some facts and some assertions to the extent they are in
the record or briefs to provide some context.
       On October 22, 2013, Marks filed suit. According to the
trial court docket, this case is a “Motor Vehicle” dispute.
       According to Marks’s appellate briefs, Marks worked for
Verizon Communications (Verizon) and suffered a work injury,
which resulted in two workers’ compensation suits. According to
Marks’s opening brief, there was a car collision when Marks was
en route to medical treatment after suffering work injuries.
Marks’s brief states that the case involving the car collision is the
subject of this appeal. Verizon appears to agree that the initial
focus of this suit was a car collision, and that two workers’
compensation suits tangentially affected this case. However, the
complaint is not in the record, and we cannot ascertain the claims
alleged or the parties involved in this case. Consequently, we
cannot rely on this record to establish the basic facts of this suit.
       According to Verizon, Sedgwick Claims Management
Services (Sedgwick) filed suit (“Sedgwick Claims Suit”) against

                                 2
the third-party driver who had a collision with Marks in a
distinct suit that is not the subject of this appeal. According to
Verizon’s brief, Sedgwick is Verizon’s “third-party administrator”
and sought subrogation of expenditures from some of the same
defendants that Marks sued. However, neither the pleadings nor
docket for the Sedgwick Claims Suit is in the record, and we
cannot independently ascertain the parties, claims, or context of
the Sedgwick Claims Suit. Marks appears to agree that the
Sedgwick Claims Suit was filed and that it involved a
subrogation claim. As discussed above, the record does not
establish any of these facts.
      Nonetheless, the record does include a stipulation for
dismissal of the Sedgwick Claims Suit providing that “the
complaint filed by Sedgwick in the Sedgwick action is being
dismissed. Plaintiff-in-Intervention Verizon is not dismissing its
complaint-in-intervention or waiving any rights in the Marks
action.” The stipulation appears to have been filed on April 8,
2015. On April 21, 2015, the Sedgwick Claims Suit was
dismissed with prejudice.
      On February 10, 2015, a plaintiff filed a complaint-in-
intervention in this case. According to Marks and Verizon, this is
Verizon’s complaint-in-intervention.
      On July 12, 2017, Verizon filed a request for dismissal with
prejudice of its claims against defendants Orchard Supply
Hardware Stores Corporation, ABCDE Transportation LLC, and
Neil Gouett. The clerk granted the request on the same day.
On November 9, 2017, Verizon filed another request for dismissal
regarding its claims against defendant Laurie Gouett. The clerk
granted the request on the same day. It is unclear if any

                                3
defendants remained from Verizon’s complaint-in-intervention as
we cannot ascertain the identities of the parties from this record.
       On January 10, 2018, a claimant filed a notice of lien in
this case. Both Marks and Verizon agree that this is Verizon’s
notice of lien, but the notice of lien is not in the record.
       On July 11, 2018, Verizon dismissed its complaint-in-
intervention without prejudice.
       On July 13, 2018, the trial court entered an “Order re
Stipulation to Settlement.” In the stipulation, although its
claims had apparently been dismissed without prejudice, Verizon
dismissed with prejudice its claims against Brooke Gouett,
Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corporation, and Ace American
Insurance Company. The trial court further dismissed any other
Verizon claims without prejudice.
       Similarly, on July 13, 2018, Plaintiff Marks and
Defendants Lourie Gouett and Brooke Gouett filed a “Stipulation
for Settlement,” and the trial court signed the stipulation on the
same day.
       The record also includes a document dated January 31,
2019, labeled “Stipulation for Settlement” on Judicate West
letterhead. In this stipulation, the document purports that
Marks settled her claims with Orchard Supply and Hardware
which provides that “All liens, including but not limited to that of
the workers compensation carrier (Verizon) are the sole
responsibility of the plaintiff.” Verizon states that this document
was filed, but there does not appear to be any record of it being
filed when it was signed.
       On April 9, 2021, Verizon, as a lien claimant, moved to
enforce its subrogation lien. Marks filed an opposition on
April 20, 2021, and Verizon filed its reply on April 28, 2021. Only

                                 4
Verizon’s motion and Marks’s opposition are in the appellate
record.
       On May 25, 2021, the trial court granted Verizon’s motion
to enforce the lien. This trial court order is in the record.
The trial court rejected Marks’s argument that Verizon’s
dismissal of several defendants precluded Verizon from enforcing
its lien. The trial court further concluded that Labor Code
section 3852 “allows for multiple ways to enforce a lien, including
through intervention or by notice of first lien.” The trial court
enforced the lien. This order is the basis of the judgment that
Marks appears to challenge on appeal.
       Verizon filed a notice of entry of judgment on August 23,
2021.
       Marks filed various challenges to the trial court’s May 25,
2021 order on the lien including a motion for new trial and at
least two motions to vacate. On September 23, 2021, Marks filed
a “Motion to Vacate the Order of May 25, 2021.” This motion,
with its supporting papers, is in the record. The trial court
denied this motion to vacate on October 12, 2021.
       Marks filed another motion to vacate on October 12, 2021.
The motion and any supporting documents are not in the record.
Verizon provided this court with a purported copy of Marks’s
notice of motion and motion filed on October 12, 2021 as an
attachment to its brief on appeal. However, even this notice of
motion and motion from October 12, 2021 is not properly in the
record as Verizon did not comply with the California Rules of
Court, rule 8.155, for augmenting an appellate record. Further,
the points and authorities for the motion are not in the record nor
is the request for judicial notice. It appears that there was no
opposition and no reply briefs filed for the October 12, 2021

                                5
motion. The court ruled on this motion on November 24, 2021,
and this order is included in the record. The trial court denied
the motion to vacate.
       Marks clarifies in her reply that she appeals from the
November 24, 2021 order from her motion to vacate filed on
October 12, 2021, and is not challenging any earlier order from
any motion to vacate. She also challenges the judgment. Dated
December 16, 2021, the notice of appeal provides that Marks
appeals “From Order Denying Motion To Vacate Order Enforcing
Workers Compensation Lien and Judgment.”
       Finally, even the parties to this appeal are unclear.
The National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (National Union) claims to be a “Lien Claimant and
Respondent” in their cover page for their brief. Both Verizon and
National Union filed a joint brief and shared appellate counsel.
In contrast, Marks’s cover pages identify the same insurer as a
“Real Party in interest.” We find no record of this insurer as a
party. However, we recognize that the record before us is
incomplete so it is possible that National Union had some role in
the trial court. Nonetheless, as we explain below, we affirm
consistent with the insurer’s position on appeal.
II.    The deficient record precludes meaningful review
       We review a trial court’s decision to set aside any void
judgment or order for abuse of discretion under Code of Civil
Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). (Cruz v. Fagor America,
Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495.) “The abuse of discretion
standard . . . measures whether, given the established evidence,
the act of the lower tribunal falls within the permissible range of
options set by the legal criteria.” (Department of Parks &
Recreation v. State Personnel Bd. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 813,

                                6
831.) In contrast, we conduct a de novo review when a trial court
determines that a judgment is void. (Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc.,
at p. 495.)
       In addition, a judgment or order from a trial court is
presumed correct on appeal. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
2 Cal.3d 557, 564). An appellant must affirmatively prove error
(Ibid.) Further, an appellant carries the burden of providing an
adequate record to the appellate court. (Foust v. San Jose
Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.) As a
result, “if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the
appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be
affirmed.” (Ibid.)
       Here, the record is fatally incomplete because it does not
even include Marks’s moving papers. Rather, Marks provides
this court with its motion to vacate, filed on September 23, 2021.
However, this is not the motion at issue in this appeal, which was
filed on October 12, 2021. Instead, Marks claims that the
September 23, 2021 motion is “substantially identical” to the one
filed on October 12, 2021 but by doing so, Marks concedes that
the motion at issue is not in the record. Respondents state that
the September 23, 2021 motion and the October 12, 2021 motion
are “the exact same motion,” with only the notice of motion “being
amended to include alternate grounds to challenge the [trial
court’s] prior orders.” In addition, the trial court noted
differences in the motions as it indicated that “Plaintiff’s motion
[to vacate], which is submitted twice, either time citing different
authority . . . .” Further confusing the record, Marks’s purported
notice of motion for the October 12, 2021 filing includes a
challenge to the May 25, 2021 order under Code of Civil
Procedure section 473. However, on appeal Marks argues that

                                7
“Appellant has never, repeat, never argued that [Code of Civil
Procedure section 473] as a legal bases to vacate the Order of
May 25, 2021, or the judgment entered August 24, 2021.”
       In summary, Marks did not provide this court with the
correct moving papers for the order challenged on appeal.
Moreover, it is less than clear if another set of moving papers are
a mirror image of the October 12, 2021 motion including its
supporting documents. Regardless, the record is deficient and
frustrates any attempt at review. (See Foust v. San Jose
Construction Co., Inc., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187.)
       Marks asserts that the only documents this court requires
to evaluate this appeal are the parties’ dismissals with prejudice.
However, Marks’s argument merely proves the point that the
record is deficient. Rather, we require a record that would allow
us to meaningfully review the propriety of the trial court’s
rulings. Such a record would include the arguments and facts
before the trial court regarding the motion to enforce the lien, the
arguments and facts before the court regarding Marks’s
October 12, 2021 motion to vacate, and sufficient information
from the docket to understand the context of any rulings, among
other pertinent pieces of information. As evidenced from the
truncated and incomplete facts described above, we cannot
ascertain the parties to this case, lack key pleadings such as
complaints and complaints-in-intervention, and cannot establish
the basic facts underlying this suit. We do not have a record to
allow a meaningful review, and consequently, the appeal fails.
(Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th
at p. 187.)

                                 8
                        DISPOSITION
      The November 24, 2021 order on the motion to vacate and
the judgment are affirmed. Verizon is awarded costs on appeal.

                                        VIRAMONTES, J.
     WE CONCUR:

                 STRATTON, P. J.

                 GRIMES, J.

                               9