Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. CV0376
ROBIE , J.
Plaintiff Edith Cartwright appeals following the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in her action for “employment discrimination-retaliation” and breach of contract. We will affirm the judgment because plaintiff’s counsel has virtually ignored his duty to cite to the record in plaintiff’s opening and reply briefs.
Plaintiff’s opening brief begins with a one-sentence introduction and then moves into a 14-page “statement of the case.” While this statement does contain some citations to the record, 13 out of the 14 pages are consumed by 29 single-spaced footnotes that contain the “facts” of the case -- none of which contain any citations to the record. In the “legal discussion” section of the brief, plaintiff’s counsel devotes two paragraphs to his analysis of the claims on appeal, only one of which contains an oblique reference to the record.
In its respondents’ brief, defendants highlight what it accurately terms the “stunning . . . lack of admissible evidence to support the claims made” in “[p]laintiff’s purported statement of the case” and urges us to “dismiss this appeal for failure to articulate pertinent arguments or present authorities on the points raised.”
In his reply brief, plaintiff’s counsel claims defendants are “attempt[ing] to cloud the issues on appeal by attacking plaintiff and her counsel” and believes “[t]his attack does not merit a substantive response.”
Plaintiff’s counsel clearly does not understand his duty on appeal. It is counsel’s duty to refer the reviewing court to the part of the record which supports his client’s contentions on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239-1240 & fn. 16; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115.) Citation of general legal principles without analysis or relation to specific facts which support the claim of error is insufficient. (Guthrey, at p. 1115; San Mateo County Coastal Landowners’ Assn. v. County of San Mateo (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 523, 559; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.)
The purpose of requiring record citations is not merely formulaic. Rather, it is to allow justices and staff attorneys to find facts in the record when evaluating arguments in the brief. (City of Lincoln v. Barringer, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th 1239, fn. 16.) “‘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.’” (Guthrey v. State of California, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at p. 1115.) “If no citation ‘is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived.’” (Ibid.) We find this is an appropriate case in which to apply the “waiver” rule.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Defendants are awarded costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(a)(1).)
We concur: SIMS , Acting P.J., HULL , J.