Singh v. Southgate Professional Condominium Owners Assn.

Filed 8/29/06 Singh v. Southgate Professional Condominium Owners Assn. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

Appellant Raj Singh was declared a vexatious litigant and ordered to post security of $25,000 in his action against respondent Southgate Professional Condominium Owners Association and Does 1 to 10. When appellant failed to post the security, his action was dismissed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581d [signed and filed order of dismissal appealable as judgment].)

Appellant contends the court erred by dismissing the action against parties other than Southgate Professional Condominium Owners Association. Appellant does not identify these other parties, or dispute respondent’s claim that only Doe defendants remained at the time of the dismissal. Appellant simply posits that dismissal of the unnamed defendants is contrary to the statute that permits dismissal of a vexatious litigant’s action upon failure to post security “as to the defendant for whose benefit it was ordered furnished.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.4.)

The record on appeal as designated by appellant is limited to the order dismissing appellant’s action and the request for dismissal of respondent’s cross-action against appellant. It includes no pleading, moving, or responsive papers submitted in connection with the motion to post security. This record is inadequate to permit meaningful review of the merits of the appeal. “‘”A judgment or order of the [trial] court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent . . . .” (Orig. italics.) [Citation.]’ [Citation.] It is the appellant’s affirmative duty to show error by an adequate record. [Citation.] ‘A necessary corollary to this rule [is] that a record is inadequate, and appellant defaults, if the appellant predicates error only on the part of the record he provides the trial court, but ignores or does not present to the appellate court portions of the proceedings below which may provide grounds upon which the decision of the trial court could be affirmed.’ [Citation.]” (Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 435-436.)

Due to the limited record, we are unable to review the merits of the appeal. As a consequence, appellant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have obtained a more favorable result in the absence of any error. (Cal. Const., art VI, § 13; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 105-106.)

DISPOSITION

The order (judgment) dismissing appellant’s action is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 27(a)(1).) Respondent’s request for sanctions is denied.

RAYE , J.

We concur:

SIMS , Acting P.J.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.