Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV045889.
Premo, J.
Plaintiffs Hy Nguyen and Jenny Nguyen sued defendants Kahanda Amarabuddhi and Buddhi Institute for Meditation and Religious Studies for breach of contract, fraud, and related causes of action. After a court trial, the trial court rendered judgment for defendants. On appeal, plaintiffs present an unfocussed, barely coherent discourse that essentially challenges us to find error. Because plaintiffs make no reasoned argument for reversal, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs gave defendants $200,000 to use, along with other donations, in renovating a Buddhist temple and monk residence. They then filed this action to regain the money. They alleged that the donation was not a gift but consideration for a contract to build a temple where they could place three Buddha statues of their choosing and worship “forever.” They claimed that defendants breached the contract by refusing to accept three statues and using the money for defendant Amarabuddhi’s residence rather than a temple. The trial court “resolv[ed] all issues of credibility against [plaintiffs], and in favor of [defendants]” and concluded that the donation was a gift.
DISCUSSION
We agree with defendants that plaintiffs’ brief is deficient in form and substance.
We acknowledge that plaintiffs are representing themselves on appeal. Under the law, one may act as his or her own attorney if he or she chooses. But when a litigant appears in propria persona, he or she is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure and evidence as an attorney--no different, no better, no worse. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639; Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160-161.)
A rule that applies to all litigants is that “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel. Accordingly, every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, p. 627.) Briefs must provide a summary of the significant facts in the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) And a point is deemed abandoned when it is entirely unsupported by argument or reference to the record. (Renden v. Geneva Development Corp. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 578, 591.) “The purpose of requiring headings and coherent arguments in appellate briefs is ‘to lighten the labors of the appellate [courts] by requiring the litigants to present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised, as they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.’ ” (Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1831, fn. 4.) Stated another way, we must be provided with analysis or discussion, supported by pertinent authority, which discloses to us the course of logical or legal reasoning by which an appellant comes to the conclusions he or she wants us to adopt. (Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007; Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448 [“[P]arties are required to include argument and citation to authority in their briefs, and the absence of these necessary elements allows this court to treat appellant’s [contentions] as waived”]; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 [appellate court “will not develop the appellants’ arguments for them”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [each point in a brief must be supported by “argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”]; see also Eisenberg et al. Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2007) ¶ 9:21, p. 9-6 (rev.# 1 2007) [“appellate court can treat as waived any issue that, although raised in the briefs, is not supported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument or proper citation of authority”].)
Moreover, “[a]rguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.” (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1388.) Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit. (James B. v. Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1021.) “ ‘[I]t is an attempt to place upon the court the burden of discovering without assistance from appellant any weakness in the arguments of the respondent. An appellant is not permitted to evade or shift his [or her] responsibility in this manner.’ ” (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 102.)
Finally, an attack on the evidence without a fair statement of the evidence is entitled to no consideration when it is apparent that a substantial amount of evidence was received on behalf of the respondent. (Estate of Palmer (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d 428, 431.)
Absent compliance with these rules, we presume that the judgment of the trial court is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)
Except when asserting that defendants admitted some fact, plaintiffs do not cite the record in their brief when stating the procedural and factual background. They advance incoherent arguments. For example, plaintiffs assert, “This is not fair for the American legal system where anyone who makes money has a duty of paying tax,” and “The trial court has found that [defendant] Amarabuddhi was credible; however[,] there were [sic] not enough evident [sic] to support that.” They refer to facts outside the record that occurred after judgment. They cite no legal authority whatsoever. They neither state a scope of review nor tailor any point to the applicable scope of review. What they term a legal argument amounts to, at best, a factual reargument rather than a claim of legal error (“THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 IS NOT A GIFT . . .”). Assuming they are making an evidentiary challenge, they ignore the trial court’s central holding that they suffered a failure of proof and the extensive, affirmative evidence in favor of defendants.
To their credit, defendants provide a comprehensible background and attempt to ferret out the merits of plaintiffs’ claim after pointing out the deficiencies in plaintiffs’ presentation. But we decline to frame issues and search for error. Plaintiffs have failed to affirmatively show error. We therefore presume that the judgment is correct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Elia, J.