Stanford v. Rothschild
Filed 5/31/07 Stanford v. Rothschild CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
JANET STANFORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD, Defendant and Respondent. | A116755 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-06-456815) |
Plaintiff, in propria persona, Janet Stanford appeals from a judgment dismissing her case against defendant Matthew Rothschild.
The record on appeal is limited to the mandatory contents of the clerks transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) The register of actions indicates that the court sustained defendants demurrer with leave to amend, and then granted defendants application to dismiss after plaintiff failed to amend the complaint. The clerks transcript does not include the complaint, the demurrer, the order sustaining the demurrer, or the application for dismissal. Without those documents we have no way to assess the merits of the trial courts rulings, and must therefore affirm the judgment. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141 [it is the appellants burden to provide an adequate record]; Hernandez v. CaliforniaHospitalMedicalCenter (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 [issues are resolved against the appellant if record is inadequate].)
Plaintiff has lodged copies of the demurrer and the application for dismissal with a Civil Case Information Statement in the appeal, and has attached various documents to her briefs, including portions of the complaint. Even if those documents could properly be considered part of the record, no error has been established.
The suit is evidently based on the City and County of San Franciscos (City) rejection of plaintiffs job applications. Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation with the City, and defendant, a City attorney, rejected that claim on behalf of the City. Plaintiff is suing defendant for negligence, but no negligence on his part is apparent. Insofar as it appears from the documents before us, the demurrer was correctly sustained.
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________
Marchiano, P.J.
We concur:
______________________
Stein, J.
______________________
Margulies, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.
