George v. Diamond
Filed 3/22/06 George v. Diamond CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| ARMEN L. GEORGE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN R. DIAMOND, Defendant and Appellant. | B182299 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC307875) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jon M. Mayeda, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephen R. Diamond, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Armen L. George for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________________________
Defendant and appellant Stephen R. Diamond appeals from the order of the trial court denying his anti-SLAPP motion (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16) in a malicious prosecution action filed by Armen L. George. As Diamond has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
1. The Record Is Insufficient To Enable Appellate Review
The record provided on appeal by Diamond does not contain George's complaint in this action. Nor does it contain a reporter's transcript of the hearing on the anti‑SLAPP motion. It is the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record on appeal. To the extent the record is inadequate, we make all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296; Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 â€
