Filed 10/16/18 Conwell v. Mallen CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| JOHN R. CONWELL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RONALD MALLEN, ET AL., Defendants and Respondents. |
A146047
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. CIV488713)
|
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
Plaintiff John R. Conwell appeals a judgment entered in favor of defendants Ronald E. Mallen, Kendra Basner, Thomas L. Browne, and Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP. He seeks to challenge the trial court’s actions in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, in granting defendants’ demurrer to an earlier complaint, and in striking a professional negligence and malpractice cause of action in his cross-complaint.
It is well established that a judgment is presumed correct and an appellant has the burden to show error. (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 (Nielsen); Cypress Security, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1014.) “Thus, an appellant must not only present an analysis of the facts and legal authority on each point made, but must also support arguments with appropriate citations to the material facts in the record. If he fails to do so, the argument is forfeited.” (Nielsen, at p. 324; accord Cassidy v. California Bd. of Accountancy (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 620, 628 [‘We disregard assertions and arguments that lack record references”]; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 [“If no citation ‘is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived.’ ”].) “[I]t is counsel’s duty to point out portions of the record that support the position taken on appeal. The appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 (Del Real); accord, Sharabianlou v. Karp (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1149.)
Moreover, any issues not raised in a separately headed argument (Collin v. CalPortland Co. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 582, 600; Roberts v. Lomanto (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1562; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)[2]) or supported with reasoned argument and citations to authority (Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; Horowitz v. Noble (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 120, 139; see rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)) may be disregarded.
Conwell has not met his burden to show error. His opening brief is almost entirely devoid of citations to the record. The record in this matter encompasses more than 8,300 pages, and it is not our duty to comb through it on our own seeking grounds to reverse the judgment. (Del Real, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 768.) Apart from the lack of proper record citations, the brief’s summary of the factual background of this case may be described as cursory at best, and it does not assist us in understanding the nature of the case or the relief the parties sought below. (See rule 8.204(a)(2)(A) & (C) [appellant’s opening brief must state the nature of the action and the relief sought in the trial court, and provide summary of significant facts].)[3] His arguments are incomplete, and they do not provide a basis for us to conclude the trial court erred. In the absence of a demonstration of error, we must affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Lee, J. *
We concur:
_________________________
Streeter, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
[1] We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. The parties are aware of the factual and procedural background of this case.
[2] All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
[3] Conwell sought and received nine extensions of time to file his opening brief and was twice warned that the court did not intend to grant further extensions. Nevertheless, the opening brief he filed was an admittedly “incomplete draft,” which lacked a table of authorities or summary of facts and procedure, and contained incomplete arguments and inadequate argument headings. Conwell expressed his intention to submit an amended opening brief. Only after respondents submitted their 67-page respondents’ brief did Conwell seek a further extension of time to file an amended opening brief or a reply brief. We treated the application as a request for an extension of time to file his reply brief and, so treated, granted it. Conwell then filed what he characterized as an application for extension of time to file a new opening brief, which we denied. Conwell did not file a reply brief.
*Judge of the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Mateo, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Conwell v. Mallen (A146047)
