In Kalta v. Fleets 101, No. B292185, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1060 (Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019), the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding that the Plaintiff was a “consumer” under the CLRA.

Defendant does not tell us the standard of review; does not summarize the facts, detailed ante, supporting a finding that the vehicle was purchased for Mr. Kalta’s personal use; does not challenge the trial court’s ruling on its motions in limine, which precluded defendant from arguing at trial that Mr. Kalta was not a consumer; and the record on appeal creates more questions than it provides answers. Plainly, defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating prejudicial error. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543, 897 P.2d 481] [HN1 a brief must contain reasoned argument and legal authority to support its contentions or the court may treat them as waived]; Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [92 Cal. Rptr. 162, 479 P.2d 362] [failure to state all evidence fairly in appellate briefs waives alleged error]; CA(2) (2) Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [86 Cal. Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d 193] [HN2 appellant must provide an adequate record to establish prejudicial error, because the lower court’s judgment is presumed correct].) CA(3) (3) We find substantial evidence Mr. Kalta was a consumer within the meaning of the CLRA, and had standing to sue. (See Civ. Code, § 1761, subd. (d) [“‘Consumer’ means an individual who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes.”]; San Luis Rey Racing, Inc. v. California Horse Racing Bd. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 67, 73 [222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453] [HN3 trial court’s factual findings concerning standing are reviewed for substantial evidence]; CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 273, 286 [71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 441] [discussing standing].) Defendant cites no case, and we have found none, that holds the consumer must pay for the goods out of his own pocket rather than through a commercial entity to have standing under the CLRA. Defendant has not developed any cogent argument supported by authority to persuade us that the facts Mr. Kalta’s landscaping company paid for and took title in the truck establish as a matter of law that only the company has an interest in the truck to the exclusion of Mr. Kalta. Defendant’s admission that the truck was acquired for Mr. Kalta’s personal use, along with Mr. Kalta’s testimony at trial, is substantial evidence Mr. Kalta was a consumer with standing to assert a violation of the CLRA. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410; Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1489 [131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 548] [binding effect of admissions].)