Opinion
A119808 A120069
8-19-2009
In re the Marriage of NATALIA A. SIDIAKINA and SIAMAK NAVID. NATALIA A. SIDIAKINA, Appellant, v. SIAMAK NAVID, Respondent.
Not to be Published in Official Reports
In this consolidated marital dissolution case, Natalia A. Sidiakina attempts to appeal, in propria persona, from a judgment following an order granting summary judgment in favor of her (former) husband, Siamak Navid. She also purports to appeal from eight other orders. However, appellant has failed to show any error because she has failed to provide a reasoned argument and discussion of legal authority with appropriate citation to the appellate record.
On our own motion, we consolidated the appeals in A119808 and A120069 for purposes of oral argument and decision.
A general principle of appellate practice is that an "`order of the lower court is presumed correct." (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, italics omitted.) This general principle means that (1) "`[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the order] on matters as to which the record is silent" (ibid.), and (2) the appellant must affirmatively show error occurred (ibid.). To affirmatively show that error occurred, an "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.] . . . [Citations.] . . . [C]onclusory claims of error will fail." (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) In other words, it is simply not sufficient for an "appellant to point to the error and rest there." (Santina v. General Petroleum Corp. (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 74, 77.)
The proper way to cite authority and facts in the record is addressed in rule 8.204(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court. That rule states that each appellate brief must "support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and [¶] . . . [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." (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).)
All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
Appellant shows no understanding of her burden on appeal, as her briefs are "in dramatic noncompliance with appellate procedures." (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) Specifically, appellants briefs do not adequately "[s]tate the nature of the action, the relief sought in the trial court, and the judgment or order appealed from" (rule 8.204(a)(2)(A)); they do not contain appropriate citations to the record (rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)); they do not "[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record" (rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)); and they do not "support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority" (rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)). Indeed, appellants opening briefs are nothing more than a table of contents.
Appellant sets forth a laundry list of purported errors, but makes no effort to provide a cogent legal analysis citing and applying the applicable law to the facts of the instant case. (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 ["appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority"]; People ex rel. Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Miller Brewing Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1200 ["appellant must present a factual analysis and legal authority on each point made or the argument may be deemed waived"].) "We are not bound to develop appellant[s] arguments for [her]. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contentions as waived. [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830; see also rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).)
In her reply brief, appellant attempts to mitigate the effect of her blatant disregard of appellate procedures, by asserting that her self-represented status should afford her some leeway with respect to "technical" mistakes and errors. Not so.
A self-representing litigant is treated like any other party and, therefore, is subject to the same rules of appellate procedure as parties represented by an attorney. (Nwosu v. Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247.) Moreover, the deficiencies in appellants briefs are more than "technical" mistakes or errors. Rather, these so-called errors constitute an abdication of her burden on appeal. We are not persuaded by appellants contentions to the contrary and accordingly treat the arguments contained in her briefs as having been waived.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed, as are the numerous orders that appellant purports to challenge. Respondent is entitled to recover his costs on appeal.
We concur:
Ruvolo, P.J.
Sepulveda, J.