Opinion
B322897
02-28-2023
HUA LI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WENJUAN CHEN, Defendant and Respondent.
Hua Li, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. David Rubin for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Clara No. 2011-6-FL006424, Stuart J. Scott, Judge.
Hua Li, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
David Rubin for Defendant and Respondent.
BALTODANO, J.
Hua Li appeals from a postjudgment custody and visitation order and a postjudgment order requiring him to pay child support arrears and an attorney fee sanction. He contends we should vacate the two orders and instead sanction his ex-wife, Wenjuan Chen. We affirm.
Li also contends we should relieve counsel for his minor daughter and order counsel not to be paid, but those matters are not included in the orders on appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In April 2019, the trial court suspended Li's visitation with the minor daughter he shares with Chen. The court also required Li to attend parenting classes and individual therapy. Li requested modification of the court's order in February 2020 and again in November 2020. The court denied Li's requests and continued the terms of the custody and visitation order.
In June 2020, Chen requested an order to calculate the amount of child support arrears Li owed. The court calculated that Li owed nearly $45,000 in arrears and related costs, and ordered $1,000 be deducted from his monthly income to pay for these obligations. The court also ordered Li to pay a $5,000 attorney fee sanction.
DISCUSSION
Li contends we should vacate the trial court's postjudgment orders and sanction Chen instead. We disagree.
A self-represented party" 'is to be treated like any other party'" on appeal. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) Such a party must thus "follow correct rules of procedure." (Ibid.) One rule requires "[e]ach and every statement in a brief regarding matters that are in the record on appeal . . . [to] be supported by a citation to the record." (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 96, fn. 2; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) "The claimed existence of facts that are not supported by citations to pages in the appellate record, or not appropriately supported by citations, cannot be considered by this court." (Mueller v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 809, 816, fn. 5.) "It is not the duty of a reviewing court to search the record for evidence on a point raised by a party whose brief makes no reference to the pages where the evidence can be found." (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1011 (ComputerXpress).)
Here, Li's opening brief contains few citations to the appellate record, and practically none that are relevant to the arguments he raises. Such a brief is "wholly unacceptable." (ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011.) Thus, we disregard the factual allegations contained therein. (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 60; Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 477, 485.)
Li's brief also contains no legal analysis. "Whether legal or factual, no error warrants reversal unless the appellant can show injury from the error." (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286.) "[T]o demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis." (Id. at pp. 286-287.) "[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions [they] want[] us to adopt." (Id. at p. 287.)
The argument section of Li's brief contains little more than a list of conclusions and requests with no citations to legal authority. As with the lack of factual support, the dearth of legal analysis in Li's brief is unacceptable. (ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011.) "One cannot simply say the [trial] court erred and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why." (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368.) It is not our duty to" 'act as counsel for [Li] . . . and furnish a legal argument as to how the trial court's rulings . . . constituted an abuse of discretion' [citation] or a mistake of law." (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's postjudgment custody and visitation order, entered November 2, 2020, and its order requiring Li to pay child support arrears and an attorney fee sanction, entered February 1, 2021, are affirmed. Chen's motion for a $10,000 appellate sanction, filed October 15, 2021, is denied. Chen shall recover her costs on appeal.
We concur: GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.