Allen v. Vista Points CA2/3 filed 7/14/26

Filed 7/14/26 Allen v. Vista Points CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
RANDALL BERNARD ALLEN,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
VISTA POINTS, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
B340898
Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
21STCV25562
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Alison Mackenzie, Judge. Affirmed.
Randall Bernard Allen, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Ross Law and Robert Ross for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________

-- 1 of 8 --

2
Randall Bernard Allen appeals from a judgment in favor
of defendant and respondent Vista Points, Inc. The trial court
sustained Vista Points’ demurrer to Allen’s second amended
complaint without leave to amend and then entered an order
of dismissal. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
As the record on appeal is woefully inadequate, it is almost
impossible for us to discern what events gave rise to this action,
which has been pending for about five years. According to the
Los Angeles Superior Court’s case register contained in the
clerk’s transcript, Allen filed a complaint in July 2021 against
the City of Los Angeles, Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc.
(Pacific Life), and Vista Points. Allen filed a first amended
complaint in August 2021 and a second amended complaint
in January 2024.
From documents Allen attached to his opposition to
Vista Points’ demurrer to his second amended complaint, it
seems Allen—represented by counsel–entered into a settlement
agreement (apparently with the City of Los Angeles) in 2017. A
“Qualified Assignment and Release Agreement” dated August 11,
2017 lists Allen as the claimant, the City of Los Angeles as the
assignor, and Pacific Life as the assignee. The document was
signed by a deputy city attorney, representatives of Pacific Life,
and Allen and his counsel. Vista Points was not a party to
the agreement. One check “was paid directly to [Allen] and
[his attorneys]” and a second check “was apparently directed
to purchase an Annuity from Pacific Life.”
Another document Allen attached to his opposition is
entitled, “Joinder Agreement for the California Pooled Trust.”
Allen is listed as both the grantor and the beneficiary. His

-- 2 of 8 --

3
counsel is listed as his “legal representative.” A Vista Points
document dated April 30, 2024, states Allen “established a
relationship with Vista Points” in May 2018. “As a result of
[that] relationship,” proceeds from Allen’s annuity with Pacific
Life went “directly to [his] account” with Vista Points, and
Allen received monthly payments from the annuity.
Neither Allen’s opening brief nor his reply brief contains
any citations to the record. Allen’s briefing is largely
unintelligible. He refers to the Social Security Administration
having cut off his benefits in December 2020. Among many other
allegations, Allen asserts the following: Vista Points failed to
petition the federal court “to become the successor trustee”;
Vista Points refused to let him use funds from his trust to pay
expenses for his graphic design business; the court pressured
him to accept a settlement offer from “defendant” and told him
“he would not recoup all of his funds and would take a loss”;
law enforcement agencies are harassing him and “[t]here have
been deep fake videos and cloned voice statements circulated on
social media platforms”; and “migrants” “have illegally obtained
his cell phone information” and are “follow[ing]” him.
According to the case register, Vista Points filed a
demurrer to Allen’s first amended complaint on November 9,
2021. On October 3, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer
with leave to amend.1 On January 17, 2024, Allen filed a second
amended complaint. The appellate record does not contain
any of the three complaints. The clerk’s transcript—as noted—
1 It is unclear what transpired in the almost two years
between Vista Points’ filing of its demurrer and the court’s ruling
on it.

-- 3 of 8 --

4
does include Allen’s opposition to Vista Points’ demurrer to
the second amended complaint. Attached to that pleading are
three pages of what appear to be Judicial Council forms. The
first is entitled “Breach of Contract,” the second “Breach of Trust
(Fiduciary Duty),” and the third “Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress.” The second and third pages—though
purporting to allege tort claims—are on the Judicial Council form
for breach of contract, with “breach of contract” replaced with
the names of the other two causes of action. It is unclear if
these three pages are part of the second amended complaint
Allen filed or proposed to file.
The trial court heard argument on the demurrer on
August 21, 2024. It then sustained the demurrer without leave
to amend. There is no reporter’s transcript of the hearing.
A minute order states the basis for the court’s ruling.
The court noted it previously had sustained a demurrer
by Pacific Life without leave to amend. The court stated the
second amended complaint alleged five causes of action: breach
of contract, breach of trust, violation of Probate Code section
17200, “failure to disclose,” and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.2 The court recited the requirements for a demurrer.
The court then stated,
“Per the December 15, 2023, Minute Order,
the Court found that the [First Amended
Complaint] was uncertain as to how the entity
Defendant, as a trust administrator, acted
2 This list of five causes of action suggests the pleadings on
the Judicial Council form were for an earlier version of Allen’s
complaint.

-- 4 of 8 --

5
under color of state law, such as by conspiracy
or joint action. . . . The Court additionally
found that the contract provisions alleged to be
breached were not specified in the pleading. . . .
[¶] The [Second Amended Complaint] does not
cure the deficiencies identified by the Court.
While the SAC drops the Section 1983 claim,
it fails to sufficiently plead a cause of action
for breach of contract. For example, the SAC
does not sufficiently allege breach because it
does not allege what sections of the parties’
agreement were violated by the Defendant.
Instead, the SAC alleges that Plaintiff became
ineligible for disability, thus rendering the
trust illegal to possess. . . . This does not allege
a breach because it does not plead any specific
facts indicating a breach. Melican v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 174.
Based on this, the cause of action for breach
of contract cannot survive on demurrer.”
The court also found the remaining causes of action “fail
due to uncertainty and for failure to state the claim.” The court
concluded leave to amend “would not be appropriate” because
Allen had not met his burden to “show[ ] that he can amend the
complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect
of his pleading.”
Allen appealed. On his Notice Designating Record on
Appeal, Allen seems to have checked box 2.a. but then scribbled
out his checkmark. Box 2.a. provides, “I choose to proceed [¶]
WITHOUT a record of the oral proceedings . . . in the superior

-- 5 of 8 --

6
court. I understand that without a record of the oral proceedings
in the superior court, the Court of Appeal will not be able to
consider what was said during those proceedings in deciding
whether an error was made in the superior court proceedings.”
Allen then checked box 2.b(1)(c), which said he would proceed
with a reporter’s transcript. Box (c) states the appellant has
“[a]ttached the reporter’s written waiver of a deposit under
rule 8.130(b)(3)(A),” but no written waiver was attached.
On May 12, 2025, Allen filed another Notice of Designation
form. He checked box 2.a. that he was proceeding without a
record of the oral proceedings in the superior court. Allen left
blank all of box 2.b., which addressed agreed statements and
settled statements.
DISCUSSION
“[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that
a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and
the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of
the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court
committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.”
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) The appellant
has the burden of providing an adequate record. Failure to
provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue
be resolved against the appellant. (Randall v. Mousseau (2016)
2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935.)
Allen has wholly failed to meet his burden of providing
an adequate record for review. The clerk’s transcript is missing
most of the key documents, including his second amended
complaint and Vista Points’ demurrer to it. Allen also has failed
to provide a reporter’s transcript or a permissible substitute
of the August 21, 2024 hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule

-- 6 of 8 --

7
8.120(b).)3 “Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided
. . . it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would
demonstrate the absence of error.” (Estate of Fain (1999)
75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992, citing Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126
Cal.App.3d 147, 153–154.)
Moreover, as noted, Allen’s briefs contain no citations to
the record. An appellant “ ‘must present an adequate argument
including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant
portions of the record.’ ” (L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th
616, 619–620, quoting Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp.
(2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 (Yield Dynamics).) Accordingly,
the California Rules of Court expressly require appellate briefs
to state each point and support each point by argument and, if
possible, by citation of authority, and to support any reference
to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page
number of the record where the matter appears. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C); Kilrain, at p. 620.)
While we are mindful Allen is representing himself on
appeal, he is “to be treated like any other party and is entitled to
the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and
attorneys.” (Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.
(1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210. See also Flores v. Department
of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204–
205 [same rules requiring appellant to provide adequate record
3 Rule 8.120(b) provides, “If an appellant intends to raise
any issue that requires consideration of the oral proceedings in
the superior court, the record on appeal must include a record of
these oral proceedings in the form of one of the following: (1) A
reporter’s transcript under rule 8.130; (2) An agreed statement
under rule 8.134; or (3) A settled statement under rule 8.137.”

-- 7 of 8 --

8
apply to a party appearing in propria persona as to any other
party].)
As Allen has failed to demonstrate prejudicial or reversible
error based on sufficient legal argument supported by citation
to an adequate record, we affirm. (Yield Dynamics, supra, 154
Cal.App.4th at pp. 556–557.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment in favor of Vista Points, Inc. The
parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EGERTON, Acting P. J.
We concur:
HANASONO, J.
OCHOA, J.
 Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.

-- 8 of 8 --