Opinion
C082607
03-29-2018
JAMES D. COREY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEAN R. GRAFILO, as Director, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. GN CV-1300059)
Appellant James D. Corey, owner of and doing business as Corey's Auto Repair & Smog, timely appeals from the order by the Superior Court of Plumas County denying his petition for writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. In the trial court, Corey sought review of respondent Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair's (Bureau) decision to revoke his automotive repair dealer registration and associated licenses, under which he provided automotive repairs and smog inspections, based on numerous violations of the Automotive Repair Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 9880 et seq.). The administrative action forming the basis of the underlying administrative decision and petition for writ of administrative mandamus was triggered by an undercover investigation of Corey's business after the Bureau received five consumer complaints.
Corey, proceeding in propria persona, has filed a six-page opening brief claiming that the revocation of his licenses was "severe, extremely dishonest, and not legal." He argues that he did not receive a fair "trial" for a variety of reasons, including the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not allow him to present certain evidence, ignored evidence he presented, and prevented him from eliciting testimony from witnesses by moving the trial to Sacramento after the state presented its case. He also claims that he was prevented from asking a key witness about an incident of witness intimidation by opposing counsel, and that opposing counsel engaged in ex parte communication with the ALJ.
Corey's brief does not discuss the appropriate standard of review, "in and of itself a potentially fatal omission. ' "Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review." [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit.' Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465." (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 (Ewald).) Further, Corey does not present each claim separately under an appropriate heading, and his brief is completely devoid of any legal authority or citations to the record supporting his claims. "We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error." (Ibid.)
The Attorney General argues these deficiencies in the briefing result in waiver of Corey's claims in their entirety. Under these circumstances, we agree that Corey has forfeited his claims on appeal.
The trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct in a challenge thereto, and the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority and analysis on each point made, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record, or else the argument may be deemed forfeited. (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) Corey was required to present each point separately in the opening brief under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the question to be presented and the point to be made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) This is not a mere technical requirement; it is essential to the appellate process. Appellants must " '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 . . . 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, 1830, fn. 4.)
Appellants acting in propria persona are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) Corey's briefing evidences not the slightest attempt to comply with these requirements.
Although Corey filed a purported "reply trial brief containing 148 pages of various documents and transcripts that appear to have been prepared by or for the trial court and annotated by Corey, he does not "offer an explanation for failing to comply with [his] duty to properly brief this case." (Ewald, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 949.) Consequently, "[i]n light of [Corey's] egregious violations of basic appellate norms, we affirm the judgment without discussing the merits." (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The Bureau is awarded its costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Raye, P. J. /s/_________
Robie, J.