Filed 9/11/17 Bennett v. Hoffman CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

Susan Bennett obtained a civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6) against appellant Richard Hoffmann. Hoffmann timely appealed. Because he has waived any argument by failing to support it with meaningful legal analysis or a single citation to the record, we affirm.

I. DISCUSSION

A lower court order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) With respect to citations to the record, the appellant must “[s]upport 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)(C).)[1] “If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived.” (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) As the reviewing court, we will not perform an independent, unassisted review of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522.) These rules of appellate procedure apply to Hoffmann even though he is representing himself on appeal. (Id. at p. 523.)

In addition, the appellant must “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “This is not a mere technical requirement; it is ‘designed to lighten the labors of the appellate tribunals by requiring the litigants to present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised, as they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.’ ” (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) “Failure to provide proper headings forfeits issues that may be discussed in the brief but are not clearly identified by a heading.” (Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172, 179.)

Based solely on headings, Hoffmann’s opening brief states one question: “Is this action by the state of California against Mr. Hoffmann to deny him residency and cause the subsequent filing of six (6) restraining orders upon him after he was approved over sixteen (16) days until DENIED on July 6, 2015 a violation of Hoffmann’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, which guarantees that ‘no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or PROPERTY without due process of law?’ ”

Based on the principles we have articulated above, we need not untangle this question or any other issue purportedly raised by Hoffmann’s opening brief. The brief does not include a single citation to the record. As such, we disregard the facts subsumed in his question (and the rest of his brief) as unsupported. (Regents of the University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 826, fn. 1.) Moreover, Hoffmann’s use of legal authority never develops any claim to the point of being more than conclusory. Hoffmann’s single citation to a statute (Civ. Code, § 1954.535) is made without any accompanying factual support to suggest it has any application to this appeal.[2] Beyond his invocation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Hoffmann also alludes generally to “violation[s] of state and federal law” and denial of “his CIVIL RIGHTS to a fair trial whatsoever.” These claims fail for lack of adequate argument and authority. We will not hunt through state and federal law on an appellant’s behalf. (Imagistics Internat., Inc. v. Department of General Services (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 581, 593.) Hoffmann’s brief is simply insufficient to demonstrate any error on appeal.

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Bennett shall recover her costs on appeal. (Rule 8.278(a)(1) & (2).)

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

BLEASE, Acting P.J.

/S/

ROBIE, J.