Opinion
A158527 A158810
10-01-2021
CARLOS MCCLATCHY, Petitioner and Appellant, v. THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. PTR11294985
We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1.
BURNS, J.
Carlos McClatchy appeals from the probate court's judgment and post-judgment costs order-both entered in the McClatchy Company's favor. The two appeals were ordered consolidated.
For clarity, we will refer to Carlos McClatchy by his first name.
Shortly before Carlos filed his opening brief on appeal, this court was notified that the McClatchy Company (the Company) had filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the Southern District of New York. Carlos proceeded by filing his opening brief, but he noted specifically therein that he understood the automatic bankruptcy stay to apply only to the Company and that he was therefore limiting his arguments to those against other non-debtor respondents.
This court issued an order staying “this appeal[.]” When Carlos filed a motion urging this court to clarify that the stay order did not apply to the non-debtor respondents, we granted the motion. This allowed Carlos's appeal against the non-debtor respondents to proceed under a separate appellate case number (A160367), while the original consolidated appeals remained stayed against the Company. (See, e.g., AB Group v. Wertin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1022, 1027, fn. 5.) In the A160367 appeal, we affirmed the judgment and postjudgment costs order entered in favor of the non-debtor respondents. (McClatchy v. Pruitt (May 4, 2021, A160367) [nonpub. opn.].) Our Supreme Court denied Carlos's petition for review.
After the automatic stay expired, we notified Carlos that he appears to be barred, on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds, from relitigating the issues decided in the now-final A160367 judgment and asked him to either dismiss these appeals or file a supplemental opening brief that addressed the res judicata issue, along with any other points he wished to raise.
Carlos's supplemental opening brief fails to address the preclusive effect of our A160367 decision or to otherwise address the merits of these consolidated appeals. He argues only that the Company may not defend this appeal without counsel and “unless qualified counsel is substituted in, [the Company] is in default and the appeal must be decided against it.” Carlos is wrong. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2) [“If the brief is a respondent's brief, the court may decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant”]; Melissa G. v. Raymond M. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 360, 363, fn. 2.)
We presume the trial court's judgment is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. (Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 443.) Here, Carlos has abandoned his appeal by wholly failing to raise any argument-in either his original opening brief or his supplemental opening brief-with respect to the judgment or postjudgment order in favor of the Company. (See Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119-1120.) Furthermore, by failing to address the preclusive effect of our decision in the A160367 appeal, Carlos concedes that he is barred from relitigating the issues decided in that now-final judgment. (See DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824-825.)
Accordingly, we dismiss these consolidated appeals. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994; Berger v. Godden, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1119-1121.)
Disposition
The appeals are dismissed. No costs are awarded because respondent did not file a brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)
We concur: SIMONS, ACTING P.J., NEEDHAM, J.