Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG04158977
Ruvolo, P. J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
In this employment discrimination action, appellant Mohammed J. Horani, acting in propria persona, appeals from a jury verdict in favor of his employer. We affirm.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Our review in this case is severely impeded by multiple deficiencies in appellant’s opening brief. We experience great difficulty in accurately stating the facts of record, because appellant has failed to comply with the requirements of rule 14 of the California Rules of Court, which mandates that he “[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 14(a)(1)(C).) Although appellant’s brief include numerous references to certain facts and procedural details, these facts are selectively presented in a light most favorable to himself, and include no record citations to support them. Moreover, many of the facts stated appear to involve matters outside of the appellate record, and have little to do with the factual or procedural history of the litigation between the parties.
Appellant has chosen not to file a reply brief in this matter.
We summarize the factual and procedural history of the litigation of the parties as best we can. This action arises out of appellant’s employment with respondent Alameda County, specifically the Alameda County Public Works Agency (the ACPWA). Appellant is self-described as “one of the few engineers at the ACPWA who is Muslim Arab of Middle-Eastern decent [sic], which makes him a member of a [sic] racial, religious and national origin minorities.”
Appellant filed a complaint on June 3, 2004, alleging that while employed by the ACPWA, he was subjected to whistle blowing retaliation, disability, national origin, religion, age and racial discrimination; retaliation for asserting his rights as a disabled employee; and retaliation for serving as a union shop steward, among other unlawful treatment. On February 10, 2006, a jury trial commenced. At the time appellant was represented by counsel.
On April 17, 2006, the jury returned a verdict for respondent. On April 27, 2006, judgment for respondent was entered. On May 17, 2006, appellant, still represented by counsel, filed a motion for new trial. After briefing and argument, that motion was denied on June 30, 2006. On June 30, 2006, appellant filed his own notice of appeal in this matter. On November 15, 2006, the unopposed motion of appellant’s trial counsel to withdraw was granted.
III.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, appellant claims he was denied his right “to a full and fair trial of his claims . . . .” Specifically, his appeal “is made on each and all of the following grounds . . . 1. There were irregularities in the proceedings of the Court . . . . 2. Improper orders of the Court . . . . 3. Abuse of discretion by the Court . . . . 4. The verdict is contrary to law . . . . 5. Errors of law occurring at the trial and objected to by the moving party . . . .”
“It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record. [Citations.]” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) He or she must “convince the court, by stating the law and calling relevant portions of the record to the court’s attention, that the trial court decision contained reversible error. [Citations.]” (Culbertson v. R. D. Werner Co., Inc. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 704, 710; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115.)
Here, as we have already mentioned, the recitation of facts and arguments in appellant’s opening brief is devoid of any citation to the reporter’s or clerk’s transcript of the proceedings held in the lower court. In fact, the 12-page “Summary of Facts” in appellant’s brief contains not one single citation to the record. In addition, appellant’s legal arguments are often unintelligible, including rambling accusations against respondent, various expert witnesses, and the trial judge. Appellant appears to view this court as a forum for retrial of the facts; and the few substantive arguments that are made are misdirected because it appears appellant has simply copied his attorney’s points and authorities submitted in support of the new trial motion filed in the court below.
We can consider none of this. (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546; Foster v. Civil Service Com. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 444, 449.) “We [can address only] those arguments that are sufficiently developed to be cognizable. To the extent [appellant] perfunctorily asserts [his] claims, without development and, indeed, without a clear indication that they are intended to be discrete contentions, they are not properly made, and are rejected on that basis.” (People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 214, fn. 19, overruled on different grounds in People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 555, fn. 5.)
Furthermore, in developing appellate arguments, all material evidence on these questions must be set forth in the appellant’s briefs, and not merely that presented by appellant in support of his claim. (Jordan v. City of Santa Barbara (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1255.) Failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error. In such a case, we may presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact. (Id. at p. 1255.)
In addition, each assertion in the appellant’s statement of facts must be supported by a citation to the record––specifically, in appeals such as this one, the reporter’s transcript or clerk’s transcript––where the applicable facts recited may be found and verified. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(a)(1)(C).) “As a general rule, ‘The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.’ [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s contentions on appeal. [Citation.] If no citation ‘is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived.’ [Citation.]” (Guthrey v. State of California, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115; Goodstein v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1260, fn. 1; Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2007) ¶¶ 9:36, 9:132 at pp. 9-11, 9-38 (rev. #1 2006).)
In sum, appellant has failed to meet his burden of establishing reversible error. That appellant is representing himself does not excuse this failure. A litigant who decides to appear in propria persona “is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.” (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638; accord, Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.)
III.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Reardon, J., Rivera, J.