NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KRIEGLER, J.
Plaintiffs and appellants Andres and Maria Theresa Orihuela1 appeal the judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of defendants and respondents Time Dispatch Services, Inc. (TDS) and Transport Services, Inc. (TSI). Plaintiffs raise three issues on appeal. First, they contend the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct on agency principles under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Second, they argue the evidence established liability of defendants under state law of agency. Third, plaintiffs claim the damages awarded were inadequate as a matter of law and the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow plaintiffs to reopen their case to present additional evidence of medical expenses. We hold that plaintiffs have failed to present a complete record demonstrating prejudicial error and therefore affirm.
Allegations of the Complaint
Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging causes of action for negligence and loss of consortium against Abel Vasquez and TDS.2 An accident occurred on May 5, 2006, on the I-5 freeway, when the vehicle driven by Andres collided with a truck owned by Vasquez, which had stopped in the lane of traffic. Andres was unable to see the truck. He suffered grievous physical injuries in the collision, physical and mental distress, and loss of income and earning capacity. Maria suffered a loss of consortium.
The vehicle owned by Vasquez bore a logo reading "Time Dispatch Services" and displaying "DOT Number 1268787" and license number "9D71517." The vehicle left the scene immediately after the collision.
TDS was a trucking service engaging in joint ventures with others including Vasquez in the scope of agency and joint venture relationships.
Trial and Judgment
Judgment was entered in favor of TDS and TSI, and against plaintiffs.3 Andres was awarded damages in the amount of $327,960.60 against Eduardo Salinas and Neo's Truck Lines, Inc.; Maria was awarded $10,500 against the same defendants.
The Requirement of a Complete Record for Appellate Review
"On appeal, a party cannot predicate error on the refusal to give an instruction unless the proposed instruction is made part of the record. (Thomas v. Laguna [(1952)] 113 Cal.App.2d 657, 660; Alexander v. McDonald [(1948)] 86 Cal.App.2d 670, 671.)" (Gaspar v. Georgia Pac. Corp. (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 248, 251; Morris v. Frudenfeld (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 23, 34; People v. Rivera (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 358, 360 ["When an appellant intends to seek reversal on a question concerning instructions rejected, it is incumbent on him to cause them to be included in the record. [Citations.]"].) "An appellant arguing instructional error must ensure that the appellate record includes the instructions given and refused and the court's rulings on proposed instructions. (Lynch v. Birdwell (1955) 44 Cal.2d 839, 846-847; Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Moore (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 278, 312.)" (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 678-679, fn. omitted.)
Moreover, an appellant claiming prejudicial trial error must present a complete reporter's transcript, or a suitable substitute such as a settled statement, of all relevant proceedings at trial. "In numerous situations, appellate courts have refused to reach the merits of an appellant's claims because no reporter's transcript of a pertinent proceeding or a suitable substitute was provided. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296 [attorney fee motion hearing]; Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575 (lead opn. of Grodin, J.) [new trial motion hearing]; In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102 [hearing to determine whether counsel was waived and the minor consented to informal adjudication]; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 447, [trial transcript when attorney fees sought]; Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 [surcharge hearing]; Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657 [nonsuit motion where trial transcript not provided]; Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532 [reporter's transcript fails to reflect content of special instructions]; Buckhart v. San Francisco Residential Rent etc., Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1036 [hearing on Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383, 385-386 [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 713-714 [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 71-73 [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [failure to secure reporter's transcript of settled statement].)
"The reason for this follows from the cardinal rule of appellate review that a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) `In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court's action will be made by the appellate court. "[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented."' (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) `"A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed."' (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) `Consequently, [appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant].' (Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.)" (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186-188.)
Inadequacy of the Record on Appeal to Demonstrate Prejudicial Error
Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in rejecting their proposed jury instructions on the law of agency as set forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The record suffers from two deficiencies which preclude relief on appeal on plaintiffs' instructional claim. First, the proposed instructions on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations are not contained in the record. Second, the portion of the reporter's transcript covering finalization of jury instructions indicates the trial court had ruled earlier that it would not instruct on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The record does not contain a transcript or suitable substitute, such as a settled statement, of that earlier judicial ruling on the proposed jury instructions. Without knowing what instructions were refused and the trial court's reasoning for its ruling, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate prejudicial instructional error.
Plaintiffs' remaining arguments—that agency was established as a matter of law, damages were inadequate, and the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs' request to reopen their case to present additional evidence of damages—also are waived due to the absence of a complete reporter's transcript or settled statement of trial. Plaintiffs have produced a reporter's transcript of the testimony of only one plaintiffs' witness and one defense witness from a multi-day trial. It is apparent from the record that multiple witnesses testified at trial, but we have not been provided with a reporter's transcript or suitable substitute such as a settled statement of the testimony of all trial witnesses. Absent a complete record, we cannot determine if agency was established as a matter of law, damages were inadequate, or whether the court prejudicially erred in denying the request to reopen plaintiffs' case.
The briefing on appeal is also insufficient to warrant relief to plaintiffs. An opening brief must "[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) "An appellant must fairly set forth all the significant facts, not just those beneficial to the appellant. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881.)" (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 402.) Because an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, the opening brief must "`accurately and fairly state the critical facts (including the evidence), free of bias[,]' [citation]" to avoid merely rearguing factual issues rejected at trial. (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1531.)
Plaintiffs' opening brief contains no statement of facts. The sum total of plaintiffs' argument that agency was established as a matter of law is that one witness "provided testimony that the trip was covered under the manuals and regulations of TDI, Inc. and TSS, Inc., the agreement with Neo's and federal and state laws; including consent and ratification of the agency," followed by a string citation to portions of 30 pages of the reporter's transcript. No summary of that one witness's testimony is provided, nor is there an explanation of how the testimony contained in those 30 pages required, as a matter of law, a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants on an agency theory.
Absent a complete statement of facts, fairly setting forth all the evidence, and an argument explaining why the evidence dictated a particular result as a matter of law, plaintiffs have waived any claim of reversible error. It is not the job of the appellate court to independently search the record for facts to support arguments made in a conclusory fashion. (Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 89-90; Air Couriers Internat. v. Employment Development Dept. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 923, 928.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Time Dispatch Services, Inc. and Transport Services, Inc. are awarded costs on appeal.
TURNER, P. J. and ARMSTRONG, J., concurs.
