But a court's failure to make a finding on a particular matter is harmless "unless the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding in favor of the complaining party which would have the effect of countervailing or destroying other findings." (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 163.) Sherman does not address whether that is the case here.
" 'In reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of decision following a bench trial, we review questions of law de novo.'" (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 (Ribakoff).) Where a party's conduct induces the court to commit an error
A. Standard of Review In reviewing a judgment based on a statement of decision following a court trial, we review questions of law de novo, including the application of a statute to a set of undisputed facts. (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162; Grayson Services, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 563, 570.) "We apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court's findings of fact. [Citation.] Under this deferential standard of review, findings of fact are liberally construed to support the judgment and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the findings.
If that body did not take formal action as required by the statute within a specified period of time, the individual may file suit. (Gov. Code, § 54960.2, subd. (c).)" (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 165, fn. 15, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 81.) It is undisputed that plaintiffs complied with this requirement in all of their cases. We note that compliance with section 54960.2 is required prior to filing suit alleging violation of section 54960 with respect to a past action of a legislative body and that compliance with section 54960.2 is not required prior to filing suit alleging ongoing or future violations of the Act.
"'In reviewing a judgment based upon a statement of decision following a bench trial,' we review questions of law de novo [and] . . . apply a substantial evidence standard of review to the trial court's findings of fact." (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 (Ribakoff).)
The appellant must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.'" (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 (Ribakoff).) That rule applies to self-represented litigants like Hupp.
Under the substantial evidence standard of review, "findings of fact are liberally construed to support the judgment and we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the findings." (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 (Ribakoff); see Vasquez v. LBS Financial Credit Union (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 97, 109.)" 'A single witness's testimony may constitute substantial evidence to support a finding.
'" (McPherson, at p. 257.)" 'A single witness's testimony may constitute substantial evidence to support a finding.'" (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162.
" '[A]n appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search . . . the law books to test his claim.'" (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162.) "It is the responsibility of the appellant . . . to support claims of error with meaningful argument and citation to authority.
In fact, the entire purpose of the Brown Act is to limit local governmental bodies’ control over their proceedings in favor of rules that make government more accessible to the public. The City's reliance on Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 81 is misplaced. There a citizen challenged a rule of a public board limiting each speaker to three minutes on any agenda item.