Opinion
C042110.
10-31-2003
DONNIE F. SCHROEDER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff Donnie F. Schroeder appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate. We shall affirm the judgment because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate error.
BACKGROUND
The County of Sacramento (County) informed plaintiff that he would not be permitted into the restaurant at the County-owned Cherry Island Golf Course while Marilyn Duran was working there, based on plaintiffs having engaged in shouting matches with Duran during previous visits. Schroeder filed a petition for administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) to overturn the Countys decision. The superior court treated the petition as one for traditional mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) since no hearing was required in this matter. The court determined the Countys restriction of plaintiffs use of the restaurant was reasonable under the circumstances, and narrowly tailored to advance the Countys interests, since plaintiff remained authorized to golf at any time and use the restaurant when Duran was not present.
DISCUSSION
The record in this case consists of plaintiffs petition for writ of administrative mandate, the Countys answer, the order and judgment denying the petition, the notice of appeal, and the reporters transcript of the hearing on the petition, at which no evidence was adduced.
The precise contours of plaintiffs contentions are not delineated. He appears to contend the decision is not supported by the evidence, the court considered objectionable testimony, the County failed to meet its burden of proof, and his rights are being infringed.
These arguments, made with minimal citations to record and legal authority, violate settled rules of appellate practice. For instance, an appellant must present legal analysis and supporting authority for each point asserted and must support each argument with appropriate citations to the record on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 14(a)(1)(B) and (C).) All arguments must be clearly designated as such with appropriate headings, and the failure to follow this rule waives any assertion of error that is not raised in conformity therewith. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 15(a); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830-1831, fn. 4.)
A difficulty even more fundamental than plaintiffs inchoate arguments is the inadequacy of the record to establish error. It is the appellants duty to affirmatively show error by an adequate record. (Erikson v. Sullivan (1947) 81 Cal. App. 2d 790, 791, 185 P.2d 31.) "A necessary corollary to this rule [is] that a record is inadequate, and appellant defaults, if the appellant predicates error only on the part of the record he provides the trial court, but ignores or does not present to the appellate court portions of the proceedings below which may provide grounds upon which the decision of the trial court could be affirmed." (Uniroyal Chemical Co. v. American Vanguard Corp. (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 285, 302, 249 Cal. Rptr. 787.) Plaintiff has provided us with the pleadings and the reporters transcript, but none of the other documents submitted to the court.
In addition, plaintiffs challenge to the superior courts factual determinations is barred by his failure to request a statement of decision. A trial courts judgment is presumed to be correct and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133, 275 Cal. Rptr. 797, 800 P.2d 1227.) To avoid the application of these inferences in favor of the judgment, a party must comply with the two-step process set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 632 and 634. (Id. at pp. 1133-1134.) "First, a party must request a statement of decision as to specific issues to obtain an explanation of the trial courts tentative decision ( § 632); second, if the court issues such a statement, a party claiming deficiencies therein must bring such defects to the trial courts attention to avoid implied findings on appeal favorable to the judgment (§ 634)." (Id. at p. 1134.) If a litigant fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 634 and timely bring to the attention of the trial court the alleged deficiency in its statement of decision, the litigant waives the right to complain of the error on appeal, thereby allowing the appellate court to make implied findings in favor of the prevailing party. (See id. at pp. 1132-1133.) Plaintiffs claim based on insufficiency of the evidence therefore lacks merit.
Regarding the manner in which the hearing on the petition was conducted, no objection was made in superior court, and as such, any error is deemed waived on appeal. (Oldenkott v. American Electric, Inc. (1971) 14 Cal. App. 3d 198, 207, 92 Cal. Rptr. 127.)
The rules set forth above apply with equal force even though plaintiff appears without the assistance of an attorney herein. "Mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forego attorney representation." (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985, 884 P.2d 126.)
There is no merit to plaintiffs suggestion that the court erred by treating his petition as one for traditional, rather than administrative, mandate because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a hearing was required by law in this matter. (Coelho v. State Personnel Bd. (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 968, 970-971, 257 Cal. Rptr. 557.)
Finally, we are unpersuaded by plaintiffs suggestion the County had no authority to impose reasonable restrictions on his use of County-owned property. "Reasonable restrictions may be placed on the time, place, and manner of exercise of free speech and assembly." (Chambers v. Municipal Court (1977) 65 Cal. App. 3d 904, 908, 135 Cal. Rptr. 695; Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1009, 1023, 898 P.2d 402 [government may impose reasonable restrictions on exercise of constitutional rights].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. County to recover costs on appeal.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P.J. and ROBIE, J. --------------- Notes: Plaintiff has appended to his opening brief several documents that are not part of the record. Since these documents are not part of the record on appeal, we have disregarded them. (Duggan v. Moss (1979) 98 Cal. App. 3d 735, 739, 159 Cal. Rptr. 425.)