Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

An appeal in a small claims case is different from appeals in other cases. The appeal is a trial de novo, i.e. a completely new trial. The new judge doesn't consider whether the first judge made a mistake. He or she simply tries the case, over again. The big difference is that, for the appeal, the parties may bring attorneys.

A small claims appeal is a new trial. There are some differences from the original trial -- the parties can have a lawyers, the plaintiff can't re-try claims she lost the first time, etc. -- but for the most part it will be as if the first trial never happened.

This means you are still the one with the burden of proof. The defendant does not need to prove that there were errors in the first trial, as he would in most other kinds of appeal. The judge won't care why the defendant appealed, and you won't accomplish anything by arguing that the appeal is groundless. Instead, you need to prove your case again as if you hadn't proved it already.

Good luck.

Appeal from small claims court judgments are to the Superior Court. They are de novo, which means the whole case gets tried again. Unless you have an issue such as the timeliness of the appeal, you need to put your whole case on again, as if it never happened before. I'm sorry to tell you that, but that is what de novo means with respect to small claims appeals. They are not like other types of appeals.