Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RF08397129
ORDER DENYING REHEARING AND MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
BY THE COURT:
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.
The opinion filed September 1, 2009, is modified to strike the last paragraph of the discussion section and replace it with the following paragraphs:
Finally, we reach appellant Larrieu’s claim that the trial court erred in barring his mother from providing legal representation. The trial court concluded that Larrieu’s mother was “not in a position to represent him, having already appeared as a witness.” The court found that the mother had a conflict of interest that precluded her from representing Larrieu in the case. (Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 5-210.) On appeal, Larrieu argues that disqualification of an attorney-witness does not apply where disqualification would work substantial hardship on the client, and supports his argument with citation to a case and rule of professional conduct from Utah. (D.J. Investment Group v. Dae/Westbrook, L.L.C. (Utah 2006) 147 P.3d 414; Utah Rule Prof. Conduct, rule 3.7(a).) The cited authorities are wholly inapplicable to this California action. It is Larrieu’s obligation, as an appellant, to support each point with appropriate legal authority and argumentation. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) His failure to do so forfeits the argument. (Ojavan Investors, Inc. v. California Coastal Com. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 373, 391.)
Even were we to reach the disqualification issue, our review would be hampered by inadequacies of the record. Notably, there is no substitution of attorneys appearing in the clerk’s transcript so we are unable to determine if Larrieu’s mother properly appeared on the motion for rehearing. There is also the possibility that the rehearing motion itself was defective because it was not timely filed. It appears, on the incomplete record before us, that the motion for rehearing was filed on August 18, 2008, which is more than 10 days after the challenged order of August 1, 2008. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008) Appellant Larrieu’s failure to provide an adequate brief and record precludes his challenge to the court’s order disqualifying his mother from representing him on the motion for rehearing.
The above modification does not effect any change in the judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(c)(2).)