Opinion
A155172
10-31-2019
PRIYANKA BASNYAT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SATYENDRA KUMAR, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-17-561869)
Defendant Satyendra Kumar appeals in propria persona from a judgment ordering him to return a security deposit to plaintiff Priyanka Basnyat. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Kumar was the master tenant of an apartment on Cleary Court in San Francisco. He subleased a portion of the apartment to Basnyat, who paid rent and a security deposit. Basnyat terminated the sublease, moved out of the apartment, and filed a lawsuit against Kumar. As relevant here, Basnyat's complaint alleged Kumar unlawfully retained the security deposit in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (g). At the conclusion of a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Basnyat on the security deposit claim, awarding her damages of $1,396.51.
The record does not contain a reporter's transcript of the trial. The parties waived a statement of decision. Kumar's opening brief does not summarize the underlying facts or cite to the record, as required by California Rules of Court, rules 8.204(a)(1)(C) and (a)(2)(C). Shortly before oral argument, Kumar filed a "motion for new evidence," which seeks to "add [i]nformation to the brief" and requests judicial notice. We deny the motion.
DISCUSSION
The most fundamental principle of appellate review is " '[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Kumar challenges the court's conclusion on Basnyat's security deposit claim, but his briefs—which do not recite sufficient facts, provide any record citations, or present reasoned argument supported by legal authority—fail to demonstrate error. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) " 'When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.' " (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862.)
Kumar's challenge to the judgment fails for the additional reason that he has not provided an adequate record. An "appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citations.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant. [Citation.] Without a record, . . . a reviewing court must make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment." (Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935.) Here, without a trial transcript or statement of decision, we cannot conclude the judgment is unsupported by the evidence or that the court erred by ordering judgment for Basnyat on her security deposit claim. (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992; see Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738, 741 [discussing return of security deposits under Civil Code section 1950.5].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Basnyat is awarded costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)
/s/_________
Jones, P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Simons, J. /s/_________
Needham, J.