Filed 8/29/17 Johnson v. Rose Glen, L.P. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Although Lisa Johnson did not include a copy of her complaint in the clerk’s transcript on appeal, she asserts in her appellant’s opening brief that in 2012 she went to the office of Quality Property Management LLP to ask why her full security deposit was not returned. She claims she got into an argument with defendant Anthony Baimas, who allegedly shut the door on her foot causing her to be injured. Johnson says she sued Rose Glen L.P., Quality Property Management LLP, and Anthony Baimas for negligence, claiming she suffers from complex regional pain syndrome which will affect her for the rest of her life.

A jury found defendants were not negligent and it did not award Johnson any damages. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants.

Johnson now contends the trial court erred in overlooking material facts, in barring evidence of a settlement offer, and in ruling that she could not prove causation. She also claims the trial judge was biased.

We will affirm the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Johnson appears to argue the trial court “overlooked material facts” showing that she was an innocent injured party. She adds that Baimas admitted striking her and his admission proves his guilt. But Johnson elected to proceed on appeal with only an incomplete clerk’s transcript. She did not request a reporter’s transcript of the jury trial or of any other proceeding in the trial court. There are no documents in the clerk’s transcript supporting the factual assertions contained in her appellate brief. Under the circumstances, we treat this case as an appeal on the judgment roll. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082.) “In a judgment roll appeal based on a clerk’s transcript, every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment and all facts consistent with its validity will be presumed to have existed. The sufficiency of the evidence is not open to review. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding on the appellate court, unless reversible error appears on the record.” (Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918, 924.)

Even if the record supported Johnson’s assertions, she has failed to cite to those portions of the record. “If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived. [Citation.]” (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 (Duarte); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [appellate briefs must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”].)

Johnson next contends the trial court improperly precluded her from presenting evidence that defendants offered her a settlement prior to trial. But settlement offers are not admissible to prove liability. (Evid. Code, § 1152, subd. (a).) Moreover, Johnson merely cites jury instructions regarding damages to support her contention. The instructions do not make any factual showing and thus we need not address the claim. (Duarte, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 856 [unsupported arguments deemed waived].)

Johnson also claims the trial court erred in ruling that she could not establish causation. Again, however, we need not address her contention because she does not cite to such a ruling in the record. (Duarte, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 856.)

In addition, Johnson questions the fairness of the proceedings. She claims that at some unidentified hearing the trial judge spoke with defendants’ counsel about going to a ranch. According to Johnson, the purported exchange shows the judge was biased against her and the bias tainted the jury’s verdict in favor of defendants.

As with her previous arguments, we need not address it because Johnson fails to support her assertion with citations to the record. (Duarte, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 856.) Although we are not obliged to search the record (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115), we have done so, and have found nothing in the record indicating any judicial bias.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

MAURO, J.

We concur:

/S/

HULL, Acting P. J.

/S/

DUARTE, J.