Opinion
B314264
02-17-2023
LOS ANGELES LABS, INC. et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. CITY OF MAYWOOD, Defendant and Respondent.
Osuna & Dotson Law Firm, Juan Francisco Dotson; DRE Law, Darren M. Richie, Antonio Castillo, Farbod Faizai; and Travis M. Poteat for Petitioners and Appellants. Richards, Watson &Gershon, T. Peter Pierce and Ginetta L. Giovinco for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No.19STCP05291. Mitchell L. Beckloff, Judge.
Osuna & Dotson Law Firm, Juan Francisco Dotson; DRE Law, Darren M. Richie, Antonio Castillo, Farbod Faizai; and Travis M. Poteat for Petitioners and Appellants.
Richards, Watson &Gershon, T. Peter Pierce and Ginetta L. Giovinco for Defendant and Respondent.
HARUTUNIAN, J.[*]
Los Angeles Labs, Inc., and Jose Mendoza (Appellants) appeal from the trial court's judgment denying their petition for writ of administrative mandamus. After the City of Maywood (City) denied their application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a cannabis testing facility, Appellants sought to compel the City to set aside its decision and issue the permit by filing a writ of administrative mandamus in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The trial court denied the writ.
On appeal, Appellants claim that the trial court erred in declining to consolidate this case with a related case. They assert that had the trial court consolidated the cases, they may have been able to establish before the trial court that the City's decision to deny the CUP was not supported by the evidence.
We conclude that Appellants waived their arguments on appeal by failing to support their claims with developed argument, applicable legal authority, and citations to the record, and by omitting material evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment on grounds of waiver and do not address the merits.
BACKGROUND
Because we do not address the merits, we recite only the limited factual and procedural background necessary for understanding the context of this matter.
Due to the limited contents of the record, which does not include the administrative record, we take the factual background from the trial court's order denying the petition for writ of administrative mandamus.
In September 2019, the City denied Appellants' application for a CUP that would have allowed Appellants to open and operate a cannabis testing business. Appellants filed a writ of administrative mandamus seeking reversal of the City's denial and an order requiring the City to issue the CUP and another regulatory license. The trial court denied the writ.
This appeal followed. Appellants filed an opening brief on July 14, 2022. The brief was filed late, despite two extensions of time to file.
On June 28, 2022, this court sent all counsel a notice of default warning Appellants that their brief must be filed within 15 days of the notice, or good cause shown for relief from default, or the appeal would be dismissed.
The City filed its response brief on July 21, 2022.
Appellants found new counsel, and, with this court's permission, moved to file a late reply brief, which was due on October 1, 2022. Appellants filed their reply brief late, on October 5, 2022.
On October 4, 2022, Appellants filed a motion to augment the record to add, among other things, the administrative record. The City filed a motion to strike the reply brief on October 18, 2022 because it contained citations to facts not in the record and presented new arguments. After additional briefing on both Appellants' motion to augment the record and the City's motion to strike the reply brief, we denied the motion to augment and granted the motion to strike. The court permitted Appellants to file a new reply brief on November 22, 2022.
DISCUSSION
I. Appellants Have Waived Their Claims by Filing a Deficient Opening Brief.
Appellants' opening brief does not conform to the rules of court in at least three significant ways.
The City argues that we should strike the opening brief as untimely under California Rules of Court, rule 8.220(c). We need not address this argument because we find Appellants' opening brief deficient for other reasons.
First, Appellants' opening brief fails to support its contentions with argument and citation to legal authority. Appellants claim that if the superior court had consolidated this case with another, then Appellants "may have been able to show that the City" did not have sufficient evidence to support the denial of their application for a CUP. Appellants assert they were "prejudiced and harmed" by this denial of consolidation. Thus, they claim that their "right to a fair trial, with access to all available evidence, has been encroached upon, necessitating this appeal." These claims are not developed through argument, nor are they supported with citations to legal authority. A brief must contain legal argument, and, if possible, legal authority to support its contentions, or the court may treat the claims as forfeited. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793; United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146, 153.)
Second, Appellants failed to provide any citations to the facts in the record. An appellant must provide citations to specific pages in the record to support its factual and procedural recitations. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 276-277.)
Third, an appellant must include all "significant facts" in their brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) Failure to do so results in the claim of error being deemed waived. (Foreman &Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881.) Appellants have not cited or discussed any of the record evidence to meet their burden of establishing that the trial court erred.
Appellants argue in their reply brief that we should ignore the failings of their opening brief. They assert that their original attorneys failed to adequately represent them. They argue that they tried to correct those attorneys' errors by filing a motion to augment the record and a reply brief with citations to the record and new arguments. Appellants argue that public policy requires us to consider the merits of their claims.
Appellants request that we take judicial notice of the "Misconduct Complaint Forms" they filed regarding their original attorneys. They argue their former attorneys filed a deficient opening brief and record. We decline to take judicial notice of these complaint forms as we do not find them relevant to their arguments on appeal. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1135, fn. 1 ["[B]ecause such materials have little relevance to a material issue in this matter, we deny the request"]; People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2 ["[A]ny matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to a material issue"].)
We disagree. The cases Appellants cite stand for the general proposition that we should decide cases on the merits when possible, but the cases do not involve facts like those here, and are otherwise inapplicable. (See, e.g., K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 875, 881-885 [discussing the need for liberal construction of notices of appeal so issues can be heard on the merits, in a case where a party was not named in the notice].) This general proposition does not overcome Appellants' failure to follow the applicable rules of court. Our rules regarding the necessary contents of appellate briefs may not be completely tossed aside because we prefer to decide cases on the merits. This is especially true when the rules violations leave us and opposing counsel in the dark about the basis for the claimed error.
In sum, Appellants' failure to comply with the rules of court waives their claims of error on appeal.
DISPOSITION
We affirm and award costs to respondent City of Maywood.
We concur: STRATTON, P. J., WILEY, J.
[*] Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.