Opinion
A149800
06-20-2018
SARABJEET KAUR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASMANINDER SINGH, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF16814779)
Appellant Jasmaninder Singh (husband) appeals a domestic violence restraining order entered in an acrimonious dispute with his wife, respondent Sarabjeet Kaur (wife). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Wife commenced these proceedings on May 6, 2016, by filing a request for a domestic violence restraining order against husband, to protect herself and their one-year-old son. Her supporting declaration described a history of emotional, verbal and physical abuse over the course of their three-year marriage. The straw that broke the camel's back, precipitating her court filing, was an explosive outburst by husband on April 18, 2016, that began during a trip to their child's doctor's office and culminated back at their home with a standoff, when husband, still irate, locked his wife and infant son out of the house and wife then placed a desperate call to police. She left the house after that, apparently never to return.
Wife's court filing requested not only a restraining order but also an order granting her sole legal and physical custody of their son. In his response, husband denied in some detail that he'd ever physically or emotionally abused wife and claimed she had abused him. The case proceeded to a multi-day contested hearing with live testimony, which neither party has summarized. At the hearing's conclusion, on September 9, 2016, the court stated on the record that it found wife to be the more credible witness rather than husband, and found that over the course of several years, husband had been "the primary aggressor . . . verbally, physically, financially, [and] emotionally," and that if and when wife had "acted back, sometimes physically," it had been primarily in her own self-defense. The court then entered a five-year, written restraining order against husband that also awarded wife sole legal and physical custody of their son, but afforded husband visitation rights. The court's comments at the hearing reflect that the custody order was intended solely to be temporary, until the matter could be resolved in an appropriate family law proceeding.
The clerk's transcript contains a number of pleadings from a separate superior court case that husband had initiated against wife one day before this case began (No. HF16814591), which wife tells us was "combined" with this action.
DISCUSSION
Husband's appellate briefing is rambling and difficult to understand. It consists of a lengthy list of complaints about the proceedings below (both substantive and procedural) presented in hodge-podge fashion. The complaints consist of attacks on the credibility of wife and her witnesses, assertions about the weight of the evidence, claims that the trial judge was biased and ignored husband's evidence, and sweeping assertions of federal constitutional and statutory error. The absence of any summary of the evidence makes it hard to assess husband's arguments or even to understand what this dispute is about and why the court entered a restraining order. And where it does make assertions of fact, husband's brief contains practically no citations to the appellate record. (Respondent's brief is equally poor in that respect.) Husband cites virtually no legal authority and engages in no meaningful legal analysis. All of this poses a formidable obstacle to persuading us the trial court committed any error.
We refer here to husband's opening brief. No reply brief was filed.
Husband's brief violates several of the basic rules governing appellate briefs. First, as we have already mentioned, husband's brief provides no summary of the evidence or facts elicited at the evidentiary hearing. This is a violation of rule 8.204, subdivision (a)(2)(C), which requires an appellant's opening brief to "[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record." Second, to the extent his brief makes assertions about the evidence and the trial court proceedings, husband in many instances fails to cite the record. He has thus violated rule 8.204, subd. (a)(1)(C), which requires all briefs to "[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"].) Far from mere technicalities, these rules are designed to enable this court to comprehend and assess the parties' claims of error with an understanding of the factual record and the trial court proceedings. It is not our duty to act as counsel for either party; thus we do not "attempt to resurrect an appellant's case or comb through the record" for evidence that might support his claims arguments, when his brief merely makes sweeping accusations of error. (Hodjat v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 (Hodjat).) On the contrary, we generally disregard factual assertions by either party that lack appropriate record citations. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; accord, Jumaane v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1406; Cassidy v. California Bd. of Accountancy (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 620, 628 (Cassidy).)
The rules referenced in this opinion are the California Rules of Court.
Third, husband's brief also fails to support many of his arguments with legal authority or analysis, violating rule 8.204, subdivision (a)(1)(B), which requires each party to "[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority." (See Cinema West, LLC v. Baker (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 194, 218-219 [" 'It is the duty of a party to support the arguments in its briefs by appropriate reference to the record, which includes providing exact page citations' "]; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 981-982; see also Hodjat, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 10 ["an appellant is required to not only cite to valid legal authority, but also explain how it applies in his case"].) Simply put, an appellate brief must contain a cogent legal argument, supported by appropriate authority. (See Hearn Pacific Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 117, 150.) "An appellate court is not required to consider alleged errors where the appellant merely complains of them without pertinent argument." (Strutt v. Ontario Sav. & Loan Assn. (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 866, 873.) " 'We are not bound to develop appellants' arguments for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as waived.' " (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956.) And although husband is not represented by counsel, he "must 'be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' " (Cassidy, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 628.)
Even if we were to overlook husband's failure to comply with the rules governing appellate briefs and to attempt to address his arguments on the merits, we would reject them because his brief in any event fails to show reversible error. " 'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct . . . and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)
Husband's claims of error are based largely if not entirely on disagreements with the trial court's assessments of witness credibility and arguments about the weight of the evidence. Husband repeatedly argues that wife's testimony was untruthful, that the trial court should not have found wife's testimony credible or found husband's testimony not credible and that wife's testimony should not have been accepted because it was not corroborated by other evidence. On review of a trial court decision, however, we may not reweigh the evidence, or second-guess the trial court's credibility determinations. " ' " 'Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.' " ' " (Bloxham v. Saldinger (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 729, 750.) Husband's arguments about the trial court's credibility determinations and weighing of the evidence fail to demonstrate error that is cognizable on appeal.
Husband asserts that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by allowing an earlier restraining order he had obtained against wife to lapse and entering a new temporary restraining order protecting wife from him, placing their child in her custody and requiring him to pay child support. He makes broad assertions about due process, the Fourteenth Amendment, fundamental rights, state action, and strict scrutiny, but provides neither authority nor cogent discussion of the law or the facts in support of this argument. This argument fails to demonstrate trial court error.
Husband also asserts that the trial court "violated several judicial canons in ignoring the facts & due process, acting with passion and prejudice and entering prejudicial orders against appellant." This argument is unpersuasive. Husband claims the judge was adversely influenced against him because he read husband's previous restraining order case from seven years earlier, but he cites nothing in the record supporting these assertions. He acknowledges that the judge stated he had done no investigation, but claims the judge's demeanor and questions to him at a June 6, 2016 hearing showed he was prejudiced against him. The record contains no transcript of a June 6, 2016 hearing; it contains transcripts of various other dates in June, July and August 2016, but none dated June 6. We have reviewed the direct- and cross-examinations of husband in the transcripts that contain them, which are dated June 3, 2016, June 10, 2016, and July 11, 2016. We find nothing in those transcripts suggesting a violation of due process or any passion or prejudice on the part of the trial judge. Nor do we find anything suggesting the trial court engaged in independent factual research or read documents about husband's prior restraining order proceedings. In short, husband has failed to show the trial court was not fair and impartial in conducting the proceedings and making its decision.
Husband equivocated as to whether he made a statement, attributed to him in a police report taken when he sought a restraining order against his wife, that he wanted documentation for purposes of a divorce. The court asked whether he or either of the women to whom he had testified he was previously married had sought a restraining order and whether the restraining order a prior spouse had sought had aided her in obtaining custody. None of this suggests independent research by the court; rather, it suggests that the court was attempting to assess the credibility of husband's testimony that he feared his wife and had sought a restraining order for that reason. In doing so, the judge inquired about and relied on evidence given in the proceeding before him, not on any extra record information.
Finally, husband's brief also challenges an award of legal fees and costs that apparently was entered by the trial court and an order requiring him to pay spousal and child support. However, the only order specified in his notice of appeal is the September 9, 2016 "restraining order after hearing," which does not award any spousal support, child support or legal fees and costs. The record contains no such orders as far as we can tell, and the parties have cited none. On the contrary, the trial court noted in the September 9, 2016 restraining order at issue here that spousal support and child support would be the subject of a subsequent hearing (on October 5, 2016). Because husband's notice of appeal does not embrace any orders on these other matters, we lack jurisdiction to review any such rulings. And even had an appeal been duly perfected, we would be compelled to affirm those rulings due to our presumption the trial court ruled correctly and the lack of an adequate record to show otherwise. (See Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Rhule v. WaveFront Technology, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1223, 1228-1229; Oliveira v. Kiesler (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362.)
DISPOSITION
The September 9, 2016 restraining order is affirmed. Respondent shall recover her costs of appeal.
/s/_________
STEWART, J. We concur. /s/_________
KLINE, P.J. /s/_________
MILLER, J.