Arzate v. Cypress Financial
Filed 2/28/07 Arzate v. Cypress Financial CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ALBERT R. ARZATE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CYPRESS FINANCIAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. | E040163 (Super.Ct.No. SCVSS125941) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Frank Gafkowski, Jr., Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Mun. Ct., sitting under assignment by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Albert R. Arzate, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Brunick, McElhaney & Beckett and Steven K. Beckett for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff and appellant Albert R. Arzate (hereafter plaintiff) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained demurrers to his first amended complaint and denied his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
We need not discuss the factual or procedural history of this case further, because plaintiff has completely failed to meet his burden of demonstrating error and prejudice, either with respect to the sustaining of the demurrer or with respect to the denial of leave to file a second amended complaint.
A judgment is presumed to be correct. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610.) To overcome that presumption, an appellant must affirmatively demonstrate both error and prejudice. (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 105-106.) He must do so by reasoned argument and citation to pertinent legal authority. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) He must also provide citations to the record to support his contentions. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) A bald assertion of error or of prejudice, without reasoned analysis and without reference to the facts of the case, does not suffice. (See Paterno v. State of California, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106.) These requirements apply equally to appellants acting without counsel. (McComber v. Wells, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at pp. 522-523.)
With respect to his contention that the trial court erred in denying him leave to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff baldly asserts that he has meritorious causes of action against the various defendants. Although he acknowledges that it is his burden to show that there is a reasonable possibility that the proposed amendment will cure the defect by demonstrating in what manner the complaint can be amended and how that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleadings (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 444), plaintiff does not discuss either the nature of the proposed amendment or how it would state the various causes of action sufficiently to withstand a demurrer. Similarly, with respect to his contention that the trial court erred by sustaining the demurrer, he merely asserts that he has valid causes of action against two of the defendants.
It is not our function to examine undeveloped claims or to make arguments for the parties. (Paterno v. State of California, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106.) The judgment is therefore affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendants and respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ McKinster
J.
We concur:
/s/ Ramirez
P.J.
/s/ Richli
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
