Opinion
H024740
7-21-2003
DOMENIC GIUSTO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DANIEL HERNS, Defendant and Respondent.
Daniel Herns filed a demurrer to Domenic Giustos first amended complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrer with 20 days leave to amend but Giusto failed to timely serve or file a second amended complaint. Herns then moved for dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), providing in pertinent part that the court may dismiss the complaint as to a defendant "after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party moves for dismissal." The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal, Giusto appears in propria persona. His arguments are largely unintelligible. For example, Giusto states "The order resulting from the motion in this case that was taken from a discretionary dismissal ruling on June 12, 2002 is grossly dis-aproportiate [sic] to the evidence, and actions of appellant and is the result of actions and omissions of the defendants and their attorney, that mandate reversal." Giusto fails to include citations to the record, includes no statement of facts, refers to matters outside the record, refers to individuals with no explanation of what their role is, if any, and never sets forth even the most rudimentary statement explaining what this case is about.
"A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. [Citations.]" (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, 86 Cal. Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d 193.)
If an issue is not supported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and there is no need for the reviewing court to discuss it. (Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 1113, 1120, 210 Cal. Rptr. 109; Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. State Bd. Of Equalization (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 1269, 1294, 250 Cal. Rptr. 891.)
As Giusto has failed to demonstrate error, the judgment must be affirmed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WUNDERLICH, J., MIHARA, J., We Concur: