From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steele v. Sacramento City Unified School District

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Mar 18, 2010
No. C059715 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2010)

Opinion


DANE STEELE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. C059715 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento March 18, 2010

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 06AS01382

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

In this employment-related case, plaintiff Dane Steele appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted defendant Sacramento Unified School District’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s complaint. We affirm, without addressing the merits.

Plaintiff appears without counsel. However, “[e]xcept when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; see Dowden v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 126, 129-130.)

As defendant’s counsel points out, the record on appeal omits the summary judgment motion and the opposition. The record contains the noticeof motion, and the reply memorandum, but not the motion itself or the opposition. We presume the judgment is correct and it is the appellant’s burden to present a record adequate to show reversible error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) We cannot determine if the trial court correctly or incorrectly granted a motion, where neither the motion nor the opposition are in the record on appeal.

Further, plaintiff’s brief provides no coherent statement of the procedural background leading to the judgment and does not address the standards for making, opposing, and reviewing a summary judgment motion. Without record citations, he presents long passages of factual narrative. He presents no coherent legal argument or analysis.

An appellate contention will be deemed forfeited unless it is supported by citations to the record and is accompanied by coherent legal analysis and authority. (See Nielsen v. Gibson, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 324; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 672-673, fn. 3.) Because plaintiff’s brief does not comply with these basic rules of procedure, we deem all of his contentions to be forfeited.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff shall pay defendant’s costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1) & (2).)

We concur: ROBIE, J. BUTZ, J.


Summaries of

Steele v. Sacramento City Unified School District

California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento
Mar 18, 2010
No. C059715 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2010)
Case details for

Steele v. Sacramento City Unified School District

Case Details

Full title:DANE STEELE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: Mar 18, 2010

Citations

No. C059715 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2010)