Swanegan v. A-1 Shower Door and Mirror Co. CA5 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/15/24 Swanegan v. A-1 Shower Door and Mirror Co. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ORSYNDAH SWANEGAN,
F085361
Plaintiff and Appellant,
(Super. Ct. No. 12CECG00981)
v.
A-1 SHOWER DOOR AND MIRROR OPINION
COMPANY,
Defendant and Respondent.
THE COURT1*
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A.
Gaab, Judge.
Orsyndah Swanegan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Orsyndah Swanegan, appearing in propria persona, appeals from an order denying
her motion to amend a judgment to add a judgment debtor. She has failed to provide an
adequate record of the trial court proceedings or to file a brief in compliance with
* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.
applicable California Rules of Court. We conclude that Swanegan has thereby forfeited
her appellate arguments, and we affirm the trial court’s decision.
“ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments
and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent,
and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate
practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v.
Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Also, “[a] self-represented party is to be
treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than
other litigants having attorneys.” (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574;
accord Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985 [self-represented litigant
not entitled to lenient treatment].)
We begin with the lack of an adequate record. According to Swanegan’s notice of
appeal, she appeals from a September 28, 2022, order denying her motion to amend a
judgment. The two-page order begins: “The papers filed with this motion do not include
a memorandum of points and authorities or declaration. Plaintiff filed a ‘Notice of
Motion,’ as well as a document titled ‘Amendment’ listing the reasons she believes
Timothy L. Webb should be named as a judgment debtor and attaching Exhibits A
through G. There is no proof of service of either document. The failure to serve the
document alone is sufficient for the court to deny the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005,
subd. (b).)” The order continues: “The court previously denied plaintiff’s motion to
amend the judgment to name Timothy L. Webb as a judgment debtor on October 3,
2016.”
The clerk’s transcript in this appeal does not contain the notice of motion or the
“amendment” filed in connection with the underlying motion. Instead, the clerk’s
transcript contains the memorandum of points and authorities Swanegan filed in support
2.
of her referenced 2016 motion. Swanegan also attaches several documents as exhibits to
her opening brief, none of which are motion papers.2
It is an appellant’s burden to ensure that the record is adequate to review the
appellant’s claims, and the failure to provide an adequate record ordinarily results in
affirmance of the judgment. (See, e.g., Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc.
(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) Here, the appellate record does not contain the
motion papers for the most recent motion or a transcript of the hearing on the motion.
Without seeing what Swanegan argued in her motion, we cannot determine whether the
court erred in denying the motion. We must abide by the presumption of correctness
here.
Besides having failed to provide an adequate record, Swanegan failed to comply
with basic appellate rules on briefing. Her opening brief lacks proper legal arguments,
contains no citations to the clerk’s transcript and only a few citations to the exhibits
attached to her opening brief, and is essentially incomprehensible. “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.’ ” (In re S.C.
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)–(C).) As a
reviewing court, “[w]e are not required to examined undeveloped claims or to supply
arguments for the litigants.” (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41,
52.)
2 Also, none of the attached exhibits are in the appellate record. California Rules
of Court, rule 8.204(d) permits a party filing a brief to attach copies of “exhibits or other
material in the appellate record,” or copies of relevant statutes, rules, regulations, and
“similar citable materials that are not readily accessible[.]” Thus, these exhibits violate
the rules.
3.
Given the lack of record and inadequate brief, we must conclude that Swanegan
has forfeited whatever contentions she may be attempting to assert on appeal. (See
Singh v. Lipworth (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 813, 817 [“We consider all points asserted in
this appeal to be forfeited as unsupported by ‘adequate factual or legal analysis.’ ”]; see
also In re Marriage of Brandes (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1481 [“ ‘ “ ‘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.’ ” ’ ”].) These deficiencies are far
from mere technicalities. They leave us without a basis to understand, much less resolve,
any appellate contention she may have wanted to present.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order is affirmed. No costs on appeal are awarded.
4.