Filed 4/2/20 Traube v. Ma CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DORIAN TRAUBE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROLAND MA,

Defendant and Appellant.

B293483

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 18STRO06812)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Hymowitz, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Roland Ma, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Denise A. Nardi and Denise A. Nardi for Plaintiff and Respondent.

An appellate opinion often begins with a recitation of the pertinent background facts. The sparse record provided by defendant and appellant Roland Ma (Ma) makes that difficult to do. And that difficulty ultimately drives our resolution of the appeal.

The record includes a civil harassment restraining order against Ma (whose home address is listed as Seattle, Washington), entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Dorian Traube (Traube) and two additional protected persons. The order itself states it issued after an October 11, 2018, hearing at which Traube and her attorney were present and Ma was not. The order was filed on the same day of the hearing and is designated to remain in force for five years.

The restraining order hearing was reported by a court reporter, but Ma elected to proceed on appeal without a reporter’s transcript of the hearing or a settled or agreed statement memorializing what occurred. The appellate record also does not include a copy of the request Traube filed to obtain the restraining order. The only pertinent documents that are included in the record are a “case summary” sheet listing all case documents filed in the superior court, the restraining order itself, and the trial court’s minute order for the restraining order hearing. According to that minute order, which is brief, the matter was called for hearing, Traube was sworn and testified, and the request for the restraining order was granted by the court.

Ma’s arguments on appeal all boil down to the contention that he was not served with Traube’s request for a restraining order and therefore lacked notice of the restraining order hearing. The contention fails in light of the record adequacy issues already described.

An appellant has the burden to affirmatively demonstrate error through an adequate record. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham); see also Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 (plur. opn. of Grodin, J.).) We presume the trial court’s judgment is correct, and “‘[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent . . . .’” (Denham, supra, at 564.) The appellate record includes nothing from which we can infer, much less conclude, there was defective service. Indeed, if anything, the meager record establishes the opposite. The case summary sheet includes an entry stating the following document was filed in the trial court on October 10, 2018 (but not included in the record on appeal): “Proof of Service (Served CH-109, 110, 100, 120. on 10/5/2018).” Ma has not affirmatively shown error by an adequate record and the trial court’s order is affirmed for that reason. (See Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center

(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.) Traube shall recover her costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.