Opinion
F075513
06-19-2018
In re the Marriage of REEM DARWISH and AHMED EL REEDI. REEM DARWISH, Respondent, v. AHMED EL REEDI, Appellant.
Ahmed El Reedi, in pro per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 15CEFL02461)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kathleen A. Meehan, Judge. Ahmed El Reedi, in pro per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J. --------
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Ahmed El Reedi, and respondent, Reem Darwish, are in the process of dissolving their marriage. Due to appellant's failure to both comply with disclosure requirements and respond to discovery requests, respondent filed a motion to compel appellant's responses. Respondent also filed a request for attorney fees and costs. According to respondent, she was required to incur nearly $30,000 in attorney fees due to appellant's excessive delays and refusal to adequately respond to her discovery requests.
The trial court granted respondent's motion to compel and ordered appellant to pay respondent $7,500 in attorney fees.
Appellant is requesting this court to reverse the award of attorney fees. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
A general principle of appellate practice is that the lower court order is presumed to be correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, the appellant must affirmatively show error occurred. (Ibid.) To make this showing, an appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and to facts in the record that support the claim of error. An appellant cannot demonstrate reversible error through conclusory claims. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
Appellant shows no understanding of his burden on appeal. Appellant's argument is "I'm appealing this judgement because it was obtained by excessive fraudulent litigations, abuse of discretion and insufficient evidence." There is no legal analysis supported by citations to authority. Rather, appellant simply makes conclusory claims. Accordingly, appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. No costs on appeal are awarded.