Choi v. Kim

Filed 4/27/07 Choi v. Kim CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lois A. Smaltz, Judge. Affirmed.

Yong Duk Choi, in pro. per., for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.

Kring & Chung and Brendan J. Coughlin for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

_________________

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Yong Duk Choi, doing business as Gene Construction, appeals from a judgment entered in favor of respondent Yun H. Kim. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]

On May 21, 2004, appellant and respondent entered into a contract for a kitchen remodel and room addition for $55,700. In preparing his bid for the job, appellant used architectural plans that respondent provided. After the contract was signed, appellant noted on the contract that additional items totaling $6,340 were to be added to the contract. Respondent claimed that she did not approve the additional items. According to appellant, he entered into an oral agreement with respondent and respondents mother for additional work on respondents house and garage, for which he was to be paid $5,600. Appellant thus expected to be paid $67,640 for his work.

Respondent paid appellant $5,500 on May 21, 2004, $20,000 on June 3, $15,000 on June 16 and $5,000 on July 3, for a total of $45,500. On August 27, 2004, appellant asked respondents mother for an additional $10,000. Thereafter, the construction work stopped.

Respondent hired other people to finish the construction work. She paid approximately $70,000 to have the work completed.

Appellant sought the money due him under the contract, for work which he claims he was prevented from completing. Respondent sought reimbursement for money spent to complete the construction work, including remedying improper construction work by appellant.

When the case was tried, the trial court granted respondents motion for judgment (Code Civ. Proc.,  631.8). It awarded respondent $9,020.55 in compensatory damages plus $1,905.00 in attorneys fees and costs, for a total judgment in respondents favor of $10,925.55.

DISCUSSION

As respondent points out, appellants opening brief is unintelligible. It does not clearly set forth his claims of error on appeal or the relief that he is seeking. Rather, it is a rambling narrative of why the judgment is incorrect without any supporting citations to the record and with few citations to legal authority. Additionally, as noted in footnote 1, ante, the record contains no reporters transcript of the trial. The clerks transcript contains only a statement of the case, the judgment, and documents associated with respondents request for attorneys fees and appellants appeal.

On appeal, we begin with the presumption that the order of the trial court is correct. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133; Fleishman v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 350, 357.) It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Robbins v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 313, 318.) Meeting this burden requires citations to the record to direct the court to the pertinent evidence or other matters in the record which demonstrate reversible error. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.204(a); Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115; Culbertson v. R. D. Werner Co., Inc. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 704, 710.) It also requires citation to relevant authority and argument. (Mansell v. Board of Adminstration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546; People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282.)

It appears that plaintiff may be complaining that his contract was not enforced because it did not comply with Business and Professions Code section 7159, relating to home improvement contracts. There is absolutely nothing in the record on appeal that appellant has provided to us to support this or any of the other unclear assertions in appellants opening brief or reply brief or to allow us to determine whether the trial courts decision was in error. In other words, appellant has failed utterly to meet his burden of establishing reversible error by an adequate record.

That appellant is representing himself does not excuse this failure. A litigant who decides to appear in propria persona is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210; accord, Bistawrosv.Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

JACKSON, J.*

We concur:

MALLANO, Acting P. J.

VOGEL, J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line Lawyers.

[1] The record on appeal provided to us by appellant contains no reporters transcript and a bare bones clerks transcript, lacking both the complaint and cross-complaint. We take our statement of facts from the parties joint statement of the case, which was included in the clerks transcript.

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