Federighi v. Adams CA3 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/28/24 Federighi v. Adams CA3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
    (Placer)
    ----
    VEDA FEDERIGHI,
    C098637
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Super. Ct. No. SPR0010445)
    LINDA LEAHY,
    Plaintiff and Appellant,
    v.
    THERESE ADAMS,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    This is ostensibly an appeal from a trial court order granting respondent Veda
    Federighi’s motion to quash and imposing $7,500 in sanctions on appellant Linda Leahy.
    Because Leahy has failed to demonstrate any error, we will affirm the order.
    1
    I. DISCUSSION
    Orders and judgments are presumed to be correct, and the appellant must
    affirmatively show error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 
    2 Cal.3d 557
    , 564.) “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.) The appellant must provide an adequate record to demonstrate
    error. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 
    41 Cal.3d 564
    , 574; Foust v. San Jose Construction Co.,
    Inc. (2011) 
    198 Cal.App.4th 181
    , 187.) Merely furnishing the record is not enough. 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).) When the appellant fails to do so, we may disregard the
    unsupported factual assertions. (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 
    36 Cal.App.5th 514
    , 520.) 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.) That relevant record citations may have been provided elsewhere
    in the brief, such as in the factual background, does not cure a failure to support specific
    legal arguments with citations to the record. (City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 
    102 Cal.App.4th 1211
    , 1239, fn. 16.) Furthermore, any arguments raised or only supported
    by authority on reply have been waived. (People v. Baniqued (2000) 
    85 Cal.App.4th 13
    ,
    29.)
    The appellant must “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading
    summarizing the point.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “This is not a mere
    technical requirement.” (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) It is designed so
    that we may be advised “ ‘of the exact question under consideration, instead of being
    2
    compelled to extricate it from the mass.’ ” (Ibid.) “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.) Leahy’s opening brief
    contains no headings beyond “statement of the case,” “statement of appealability,”
    “statement of facts,” “argument,” and “conclusion.”
    Additionally, in violation of the rules of appellate procedure we have outlined, the
    argument portion of Leahy’s opening brief contains no actual argument, citations to
    authority, or citations to the record. Rather, it represents: “Appellant has stated, in the
    Statement of Facts, the Appealability of the Case and the Statement of Facts, the entire
    argument, with the exception of the relief sought. Based upon the facts in the Clerk’s
    Transcript, the Reporter’s Transcript, available and missing, along with Appellants,
    appeal [sic], the case on appeal has been made.” This is insufficient. The rules of
    appellate procedure apply to Leahy even though she is representing herself on appeal.
    (Huang v. Hanks (2018) 
    23 Cal.App.5th 179
    , 183, fn. 1; McComber v. Wells, 
    supra,
     72
    Cal.App.4th at p. 523.)
    To the extent we have extricated a question imbedded in Leahy’s recitation of the
    factual background and statement regarding appealability, Leahy failed to adequately
    raise and support this issue anywhere in her opening brief. Leahy suggests she was
    denied accommodation but cites no request for one. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule
    1.100(c).) She has failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the trial court.
    3
    II. DISPOSITION
    The order is affirmed. Veda Federighi shall recover her costs on appeal. (Cal.
    Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (2).)
    /S/
    RENNER, J.
    We concur:
    /S/
    MAURO, Acting P. J.
    /S/
    FEINBERG, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C098637

Filed Date: 10/28/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/28/2024