Ava Levine v. Creative Change Counseling Inc. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    AVA LEVINE,
    No. 73559-4-1
    Respondent,
    DIVISION ONE
    v.                                                                r-J      V"' O
    UNPUBLISHED OPINION
    T&Z.     m.....
    CREATIVE CHANGE COUNSELING,
    INC., FOREST WOODLEY, SILVA                                                      I        ..>
    BELL-WOODLEY, husband and wife,                                                 CO       :}~~~
    and the marital community thereof,
    Appellants,
    cr-
    DAN OWENS, JANE DOE OWENS,
    and the marital community thereof,
    JANET WHITE, JOHN DOE WHITE,
    and the marital community thereof,
    Defendants.                 FILED: August 8, 2016
    Trickey, A.C.J. —A party seeking appellate review must provide a record
    sufficient to review the issues raised on appeal. On appeal, Creative Change
    Counseling Centers challenge evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the
    evidence to support the trial court's decision. Because the record is inadequate to
    review these claims, we affirm.
    FACTS
    On June 17, 2015, Creative Change Counseling Centers, Inc., Sylvia Bell-
    Woodley, and Forest Woodley (collectively CCCC), defendants below, filed a
    notice of appeal challenging an adverse judgment of about $363,000 entered in
    favor of Ava Levine. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that CCCC
    violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW,
    when it demoted and then terminated Levine.
    No. 73559-4-1 / 2
    In the statement of arrangements, counsel for CCCC ordered transcription
    of the verbatim report of proceedings. See RAP 9.2(b). Counsel later informed
    the court that CCCC would not be providing a verbatim report of proceedings.
    Counsel then designated a total of 21 pages of clerk's papers, consisting of the
    clerk's minute entries, a one-page witness record, and a list of the trial exhibits.
    The record does not include the exhibits themselves.
    On appeal, CCCC challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
    trial court's finding of discrimination, the amount of damages, and proximate cause.
    CCCC also claims the trial court should have excluded evidence of special and
    general damages.
    The appellant has the burden to provide a record sufficient to review the
    issues raised on appeal. Story v. ShelterBay Co.. 52Wn. App. 334, 345,
    760 P.2d 368
     (1988). "If the party seeking review intends to urge that a verdict orfinding of
    fact is not supported by the evidence, the party should include in the record all
    evidence relevant to the disputed verdict or finding." RAP 9.2(b).
    CCCC has not provided a verbatim report of proceedings or any record of
    the evidence before the trial court.       Consequently, we cannot review the
    evidentiary basis for the trial court's finding of discrimination and the other
    challenged findings. Nor can we review CCCC's apparent challenge to the trial
    court's evidentiary rulings. Because CCCC failed to provide a relevant appellate
    record, the factual allegations in its brief are unsupported by any reference to the
    record, in violation of RAP 10.3(a)(6) (party must support arguments in brief with
    No. 73559-4-1 / 3
    "references to relevant parts of the record").1     CCCC's failure to provide an
    adequate record precludes any meaningful appellate review. See Bulzomi v. Dep't
    of Labor & Indus.. 
    72 Wn. App. 522
    , 525, 
    864 P.2d 996
     (1994).
    Levine requests an award of attorney fees on appeal. Under RCW
    49.60.030(2), a successful plaintiff who also prevails on appeal is entitled to an
    award of reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal. Martini v. Boeing Co..
    
    137 Wn.2d 357
    , 377, 
    971 P.2d 45
     (1999). Levine is therefore awarded reasonable
    attorney fees and costs on appeal, payable by CCCC, subject to compliance with
    RAP 18.1. Levine's request for the imposition of CR 11 sanctions against counsel
    for CCCC is denied.
    Affirmed.
    lr\ci3~'                               ^e^,
    1 The respondent's brief also refers to documents outside of the record on appeal, in
    violation of RAP 10.3(a)(6).