Farmers Ins. v. Kanode
Filed 4/18/06 Farmers Ins. v. Kanode CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BARBARA KANODE, Defendant and Appellant. | G033782 (Super. Ct. No. 00CC04644) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Charles Margines, Judge. Affirmed and remanded.
Law Offices of Steven R. Young and Steven R. Young for Defendant and Appellant.
Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robert A. Olson and Cynthia E. Tobisman; Picker, Chow & Freisleben, Lily Chow and Alan Freisleben, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Barbara Kanode, a former agent for Farmers Insurance Exchange and related companies[1], appeals from the trial court's orders (1) granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on her claim against Farmers for interference with her business relationships and (2) granting a new trial on damages stemming from Farmers' alleged breach of her agency contract, after a jury had found in her favor on both claims and awarded her identical measures of economic damages. Farmers cross-appeals, arguing the court should have granted a JNOV in its favor on the breach of contract claim as well as the interference claim. We conclude the trial court ruled appropriately, affirm the orders, and remand the case for a new trial on Kanode's breach of contract claim.
* * *
Initially, we must note that it is the responsibility of an appellant to give the court an adequate statement of the facts necessary to analyze the issues on appeal, and to support the facts stated in her brief with appropriate citations to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14, subds. (a)(1)(C) & (a)(2)(C).) Kanode's opening brief is woefully inadequate in this regard.
Although our record in this case includes 19 volumes of reporter's transcript (for a total of 4000 pages), the statement of facts contained in Kanode's opening brief cites to that transcript only six times. She adds only two more references in the argument portion of her brief, for a total of eight references.[2] Numerous factual claims made in Kanode's brief, including some complete with purported quotations of oral statements, are unsupported by any reference to the record.[3]
To the extent she does support her factual claims, Kanode relies primarily upon the content of certain trial exhibits. While these are certainly part of the evidence, they represent only a small fraction of what the trial court had before it in making its decisions. To compound the problem, Kanode has mischaracterized at least one exhibit, claiming it establishes that a Farmers employee was responsible for having her arrested and taken to a mental hospital. But the document in question reflects that it was Kanode's own father who did so.
It is not enough for Kanode to merely tell a story while presenting us with an enormous record from a trial which spanned over two months, apparently hoping we will dive in and sort it all out. â€
