Najafifard v. Mehdi
Filed 6/12/13 Najafifard v. Mehdi CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
IN THE 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
HOURIEH NAJAFIFARD,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
AHMADI MEHDI,
Defendant and Appellant.
B236300
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. LS021695)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
County, Leland B. Harris, Judge. Affirmed.
Ahmadi Mehdi, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Hourieh Najafifard, Plaintiff and
Respondent.
___________________________
INTRODUCTION
Ahmadi Mehdi appeals from the issuance of a
Mehdi failed to provide this court with a record sufficient to review this
matter, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Hourieh Najafifard filed a CH-100 Request for Orders
to Stop Harassment on July 8, 2011.
to expire in two years. Mehdi timely
appealed.
The hearing was only
reported in part, and the reporter’s transcript submitted on appeal indicated
that the reporter left before the conclusion of the proceedings. On August 24,
2012,
Mehdi made a motion in this Court to augment the record and to obtain a settled
statement of the omitted proceedings. On September
13, 2012, no opposition having been filed, we ordered Mehdi to file a condensed
narrative with the trial court and ordered a settled statement or corrected
record to be prepared after hearing. The
Superior Court file contains a two-page document designated as a condensed
narrative filed by Mehdi on October 2, 2012. At the hearing on November
6, 2012, the court, appearing to conclude that the document was argument rather
than a condensed narrative, issued a minute order reciting its findings, and
the basis for its conclusions.
In its order, the court
indicated that it had no independent recollection of the original hearing, but
had reviewed its minute order and the CH-100 and its attachments; the court
drew the inference that, after hearing from the parties, it had determined that
Najafifard was credible, and Mehdi was not, and on that basis sustained the
petition by clear and convincing evidence.
DISCUSSION
The preparation of a settled
statement on appeal is governed by California Rules of Court, Rules 8.130 (g)
and 8.137. Rule 8.137 (b) requires that
the appellant serve and file “a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings
that the appellant believes necessary for the appeal.†The statement filed by Mehdi does not set
forth any testimony, or summaries of testimony, but instead complains about
issues the trial court omitted or failed to consider. The statement did not comply with the
rules.
The condensed narrative must
accurately reflect the proceedings in the trial court. Where it is not
objective and truthful, but contains only fragments of evidence, or partisan
statements, the trial court is entitled to prepare a statement that reflects
the actual proceedings. When appellant
“fails to convince the trial judge that his statement accurately reflects the
proceedings in question, the action of the trial judge, who heard and tried the
case, must be regarded as final.†(
636; see also St. George v. Superior
Court (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 815,817 [trial judge has full power over the
record so long as it does not act in arbitrary manner].) Mehdi has not demonstrated that the settled
statement prepared by the trial court, in light of his own inadequate
narrative, was arbitrary or inaccurate.
Mehdi’s brief to this court
is similarly insufficient. He fails to
discuss the standard of review, and also fails to present any legal authority
for any of his arguments.
name="_ftnref3" title="">[3] As such, he has forfeited his arguments on
appeal. “It is a fundamental rule of
appellate review that the judgment appealed from is presumed correct and ‘“‘all
intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’†[Citation.]’
[Citation.] An appellant must
provide an argument and legal authority
to support his contentions. This burden
requires more than a mere assertion that the judgment is wrong. ‘Issues do not have a life of their own: If they are not raised or supported by
argument or citation to authority, [they
are] . . . waived.’
[Citation.] It is not our place
to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the
presumption of correctness. When an
appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with
reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as
waived. [Citation.]†(Benach
v. County
836, 852). “When an issue is unsupported
by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and
discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary. [Citations.]â€
(Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th
691, 699-700.)
In any event, Mehdi’s brief essentially argues that the trial
court erred in its assessment of credibility, and failed to consider Mehdi’s
evidence, which contradicted that of Najafifard. As, on review, we do not reweigh such
credibility determinations (Bertero v.
National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d. 43, 64), those arguments would
fail in any case.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Mehdi is to bear his own costs on appeal.
ZELON,
J.
We
concur:
PERLUSS, P. J. WOODS,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
Because
the Clerk’s Transcript and Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript do not contain this
document, we have referred to the original Superior Court file for this and
other essential documents.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
This
Court recognizes the difficulties faced by litigants, particularly those who
are self-represented, who find themselves unprepared to reproduce the testimony
at trial in the absence of a reporter’s transcript. Unless made aware at the outset of the
proceedings of the rules governing settled statements, they may find their ability
to appeal constrained. Nonetheless, in
this case, appellant made no reasonable efforts to comply with the rules or the
orders of this Court.
