Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VC044431, John Torribio, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas Garrit, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KITCHING, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Thomas Garrit appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Tawana Garrit. Thomas claims the trial court erroneously denied his new trial motion, but his failure to provide argument or citation to legal authority or to the record forfeits this claim of error on appeal. Thomas also claims reversible error from the trial court’s failure to furnish a statement of decision, but has not shown that he made a timely request for a statement of decision, and therefore no error occurred. We affirm the judgment.
Because the parties share a surname, we refer to them by their first names for clarity and ease of reference, and intend no disrespect. (See In re Marriage of Olsen (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1704, fn 1.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Tawana sued Thomas for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On September 13, 2006, after a trial by the court, judgment was awarded in favor of plaintiff Tawana and against defendant Thomas for $17,688 for lost wages, $40,000 for pain and suffering, and $80,000 in punitive damages, for a total judgment against defendant of $137,688. A judgment was subsequently entered on October 6, 2006.
On September 29, 2006, Thomas filed a motion for new trial and to vacate the verdict and judgment. On November 3, 2006, the trial court denied the motion, and denied Thomas’s request for a statement of decision.
Thomas filed a timely notice of appeal.
ISSUES
Thomas claims on appeal that the trial court erroneously refused to grant his motion for a new trial and erroneously denied his request for a statement of decision.
DISCUSSION
1. The Absence of Argument or Citation of Authority Forfeits the Claim of Error
Regarding the Denial of Thomas’s New Trial Motion
Thomas claims that the trial court erroneously refused to grant his new trial motion, but makes no argument, discussion, analysis, or citation to legal authority or to the record. “Contentions on appeal are waived by a party who fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1303; Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007.) Thomas therefore forfeits the claim on appeal.
2. Thomas Has Not Shown That He Made a Timely Request for a Statement of Decision, and Therefore No Error Arose From the Failure to Furnish One
Thomas claims the trial court erroneously denied his request for a statement of decision.
Code of Civil Procedure section 632 requires the trial court, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, to issue a statement of decision “upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision unless the trial is concluded within one calendar day or in less than eight hours over more than one day in which event the request must be made prior to the submission of the matter for decision.”
Trial of this matter was completed within one calendar day, September 13, 2006. Code of Civil Procedure section 632 therefore required Thomas to request a statement of decision before submission of the matter for decision. Thomas provides no citation to the record showing that he made a timely request for a statement of decision, nor does the record otherwise reflect such a request. Unless the party timely requests one, no statement of decision is required (Tusher v. Gabrielsen (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 131, 140) and no error arises from the failure to furnish a statement of decision (In re Marriage of Katz (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1711, 1718). The failure to make a timely request for a statement of decision means that this contention of error lacks merit. (Staten v. Heale (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1091; Khan v. Medical Board (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1840.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant Tawana Garrit.
We concur: KLEIN, P. J., ALDRICH, J.