Opinion
A148114
03-15-2017
VICTORIA L. CARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HDM FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC15544243) MEMORANDUM OPINION
We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
Defendant Victoria Card, acting in propria persona, appeals from a judgment after a court trial of a collection action. The court awarded plaintiff HDM Furniture Industries, Inc. (HDM) $45,461.11 in damages, interest, costs and attorney fees.
Card's opening brief in this appeal consists primarily of allegations that she never had any business dealings with HDM; that HDM no longer exists; that it fabricated the complaint after its parent company was liquidated in bankruptcy; and that its attorney made fraudulent reports to credit agencies to destroy her financially and generally employs illegal collection methods, vexatious litigation and privacy violations. After this recitation, Card's brief concludes that HDM and its attorney "filed a corrupted dishonest Complaint" for the sole purpose of harassment and extortion and "consented to fabricate a plot to frame [and] frighten an older women [sic] in business and subsequently benefit of a large sum of money."
HDM filed a one-paragraph response, observing that there were "no points and no authorities for respondent to address." In her reply brief, Card asserted HDM's lawsuit was based on a fraudulent or stolen contract "which a bunch of corrupted, dishonest cons fabricated scheme [sic] by filing a frivolous lawsuit claiming ownership. . . . Plaintiffs are known for filing frivolous lawsuits, which are packed with Lies, fraudulent fabricated claims and harassments, destroying people's lives and basically misleading the legal system and benefit huge financial gains. [¶] These are a Gang of furniture dealers in North Carolina that every few years file a mass liquidation bankruptcy; stiffing all creditors in millions of Dollars and stealing whatever else they get their hands on."
None of Card's assertions are supported by citations to the record. Card argues the trial court failed to take into consideration that she was a 61-year-old single woman who could not afford to hire an attorney, but there is nothing in her briefs to explain the bases for the court's rulings or identify legal error. Card's briefs are also devoid of any cognizable legal argument or citation to supporting authority. It is the appellant's duty to show that error occurred by argument and citation to the record. (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050.) "[F]ailure of an appellant in a civil action to articulate any pertinent or intelligible legal argument in an opening brief may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed an abandonment of the appeal justifying dismissal. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119 (Berger); In re Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544; Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451, 461.) An appellate court is not required to consider alleged error "where the appellant merely complains of it without pertinent argument." (Berger, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1119.) In such cases, as here, it is appropriate for this court to deem the appeal abandoned and to dismiss it. (Id. at p. 1120 & fn. 7].)
We are sympathetic to the fact that Card is representing herself without the benefit of an attorney, but her status as a self-represented litigant does not exempt her from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve her obligation to present intelligible argument supported by the record and legal authority. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Card has failed to identify any theory of error or present any relevant argument, so we deem her appeal abandoned.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
Siggins, J. We concur: /s/_________
McGuiness, P.J. /s/_________
Jenkins, J.