Opinion
B304216
01-20-2021
SYLVIA PARKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PETER WODINSKY, Defendant and Respondent.
Sylvia Parker, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Naiman Law Group and Randall D. Naiman for Defendant and 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV40624) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Gregory Keosian, Judge. Affirmed. Sylvia Parker, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Naiman Law Group and Randall D. Naiman for Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff Sylvia Parker appeals from the trial court's order granting defendant Peter Wodinsky's special motion to strike her complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Her appellant's opening brief, however, fails to raise any cognizable argument, supported by citations to legal authority, demonstrating error. Therefore, we affirm the order.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
Parker failed to designate an adequate record to summarize the background of the case, let alone to demonstrate any error. Wodinsky filed a motion to augment the record with the numerous documents Parker failed to designate; we hereby grant Wodinsky's motion. Parker subsequently filed her own motion to augment the record with documents related to Wodinsky's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which motion is not relevant to this appeal; therefore we deny Parker's motion. --------
In April 2019, the house in which Parker resided was purchased at a non-judicial foreclosure sale by U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (U.S. Bank). In May 2019, U.S. Bank served Parker with a three-day notice to vacate the house. Parker responded to the notice by claiming she was a tenant in a single family home, and therefore she could not be evicted merely because U.S. Bank had foreclosed. Counsel for U.S. Bank requested certain proof to confirm her tenancy, and when Parker failed to respond, U.S. Bank filed an unlawful detainer action (the UD action).
The complaint in the UD action was filed by Randall D. Naiman of Naiman Law Group as attorney for U.S. Bank. Naiman Law Group then retained Wodinsky to serve as appearance counsel on behalf of U.S. Bank in the UD action, and Wodinsky appeared as U.S. Bank's attorney at multiple hearings.
In November 2019, while the UD action was still pending, Parker, representing herself, filed the complaint in the present action. The form complaint alleges a single cause of action for "intentional tort" against Wodinsky based upon the following factual allegation: "Defendant has been fraudulently appearing in court in a case against plaintiff without any legal authority." This same factual allegation also forms the basis for Parker's request for punitive damages. She seeks total damages in the amount of $100 million.
Wodinsky filed a special motion to strike Parker's complaint under section 425.16. Parker filed an opposition to the motion, arguing that the motion was frivolous and repeatedly asserting that neither Wodinsky nor Naiman Law Group have authorization from U.S. Bank to appear for or represent it in court; her sole support for this assertion was her statement that Wodinsky refused to provide her with evidence of his authority. The trial court granted the special motion to strike, finding that Parker's lawsuit arises from protected activity (Wodinsky's representation of a party in a judicial proceeding), and that Parker has no probability of prevailing because her claim is barred by the litigation privilege embodied in Civil Code section 47.
The trial court issued its order granting the special motion to strike on February 11, 2020. Parker filed her notice of appeal from the order that same day.
DISCUSSION
Parker filed a second amended appellant's opening brief (after her previous briefs were rejected for procedural reasons) that contains no description of the factual background (despite a heading entitled "Factual Background") and a two-sentence argument section. While she asserts the trial court erred in granting Wodinsky's special motion to strike, stating that Wodinsky failed to satisfy the requirements of section 425.16, subdivision (j)(1), she provides no legal analysis demonstrating that such an omission (if true) supports reversal of an order granting a special motion to strike.
An order of the trial court is presumed correct, and an appellant has the burden of affirmatively showing error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) To do so, the appellant "must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and 'present argument and authority on each point made.'" (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) "An appellate court is not required to consider alleged errors where the appellant merely complains of them without pertinent argument." (Strutt v. Ontario Sav. & Loan Assn. (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 866, 873.) Although we recognize that Parker is appearing in propria persona, she "'is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.'" (Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.)
Because Parker failed to provide any argument, supported by legal authority, demonstrating reversible error, we must affirm the order granting Wodinsky's special motion to strike.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Wodinsky shall recover his costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, J.
We concur:
MANELLA, P. J.
CURREY, J.