Opinion
G053098
03-14-2017
RUHANGIZ RAIMOVA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WEST COAST TOWING SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Ruhangiz Raimova, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance by Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 30-2015-00797946) OPINION Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Walter P. Schwarm, Judge. Dismissed. Ruhangiz Raimova, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance by Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
Plaintiff Ruhangiz Raimova appeals from orders: (1) denying his requests for a preliminary injunction; (2) denying his applications for a writ of possession; (3) denying his request to disqualify the trial judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6; and (4) denying his motion to stay the action pending resolution of his two appeals. In plaintiff's companion appeal, case No. G053020, we rejected plaintiff's first three challenges. An order denying a motion to stay is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant appeal.
All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. --------
FACTS
Plaintiff appeals from orders entered on November 12, 2015, December 22, 2015, and January 26, 2016. In case No. G053020, we resolved plaintiff's appeal from the first two orders. Therefore, we recite the facts here only with respect to the order entered January 26, 2016.
On January 4, 2016, plaintiff filed a pleading entitled, "NOTICE OF MOTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION AND MOTION TO STAY ALL ACTIONS, PENDING APPEALS & SEVERE ILLNESS, TO DEF'S 12/22/15, FALSE, UNTRUE MONETARY SANCTION MOTION, & PLAINTIFF'S 7TH REPLY TO DEF'S WCTS & FARAHNAZ GORJIYAN'S RESPON[S]E of 10/28/2015, and ALL 7 MOTIONS ON 7/16/2015, 8/6/2015, 8/14/2015, 8/20/2015, 10/20/2014, 11/10/2015, 12/22/2015; PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFS' 7/24/2015, 8/04/15, 8/25/15, 8/27/15, 8/26/15, 9/8/15, 10/28/15, 11/03/15, 11/06/15, 11/7/15, 11/10/15, 11/12/15, 11/17/15, 11/20/15 WRITINGS & DEF'S LETTERS OF 8/6/2015 & 11/3/15 (NOT SENT OUT TILL 11/7/15); DECLARTION [sic] OF RUHANGIZ RAIMOVA."
On January 26, 2016, the court denied plaintiff's motion on grounds the requests for affirmative relief were unsupported by legal authority and the motion appeared to repeat requests for relief which the court previously denied on November 12, 2015.
DISCUSSION
We already addressed plaintiff's challenge to the November 12, 2015 and December 22, 2015 orders in case No. G053020. As to the court's January 26, 2016 denial of plaintiff's motion filed January 4, 2016, plaintiff advanced no legal argument in his motion. Instead, the oversized 43-page pleading contains responses to special interrogatories detailing Leica camera equipment and other tools and equipment plaintiff alleges were in his vehicle when it was stolen. The pleading also includes a request for a temporary restraining order restraining the Department of Motor Vehicles and its Director, Jean Shiomoto, from transferring title to the vehicle, an opposition and/or reply to certain filings by West Coast Towing Service, Inc., an opposition to a demurrer by Clear Choice Lien Services, Inc. (even though Clear Choice had already filed an answer to plaintiff's amended complaint), and a request for a writ of possession. Plaintiff also requested damages and the production of business records from defendants. Finally, without argument, plaintiff concluded by asking the court to "grant[] motion to stay all actions pending appeals and plaintiff [sic] severe illness." Plaintiff does not identify the illness or any impact it may have on his ability to prosecute the case.
On appeal, plaintiff filed an opening brief nearly identical to that filed in case No. G053020. He requests we reverse the trial court's denial of his requests for a preliminary injunction, applications for a writ of possession, peremptory challenge to Judge Schwarm, and motion to stay the appeal.
"A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness." (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) "The burden of affirmatively demonstrating error is on the appellant. This is a general principle of appellate practice as well as an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error." (Fundamental Investment Etc. Realty Fund v. Gradow (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 966, 971.) To demonstrate error, an appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority on the points made. (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368.) These principles apply equally to appellants representing themselves in propria persona. (See Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639 [litigants representing themselves in propria persona are held to same standards as lawyers].)
Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish reversible error. The orders denying plaintiff's applications for a writ of possession, peremptory challenge and motion to stay are not appealable. (§ 904.1; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. The Best Service Co., Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 650, 655; Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Harrah's Club (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 764, 772, fn. 3.) While the orders denying plaintiff's requests for a preliminary injunction are appealable, we already addressed plaintiff's challenge on the merits in case No. G053020. We agree with the court that plaintiff's latest motion repeats requests for relief previously denied. Likewise, plaintiff's appeal repeats requests we previously considered and rejected. (See Adams v. Pacific Bell Directory (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 93, 97 [where "'appellate court states in its opinion a principle of law necessary to the decision, that principle becomes law of the case and must be adhered to in all subsequent proceedings, including appeals'"].) Given that an order denying a motion to stay is not appealable, there is nothing more for us to decide here.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Respondents, not having made an appearance on appeal, no costs are awarded.
IKOLA, J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, ACTING P. J. FYBEL, J.