Opinion
B157855.
7-29-2003
ALAN J. SUTOVSKY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, INC., Defendant and Respondent.
Alan J. Sutovsky and Joseph Sutovsky, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Bannan, Green, Frank & Terzian, Ronald F. Frank and Julie A. Giacopuzzi for Defendant and Respondent.
In April 1998, Alan Sutovsky (and his father, who is included in our references to Sutovsky) purchased a new Mercedes-Benz ML320 from Rusnak Pasadena (a Mercedes-Benz dealer included in our subsequent references to Mercedes-Benz) for $ 45,000. In August 1999, Sutovsky wrote to Mercedes-Benz, complained about problems with his car, and demanded that Mercedes-Benz either replace the vehicle or buy it back for $ 45,000.
Mercedes-Benz (while maintaining that it was not legally obligated to do so) offered to buy the car back for $ 37,000 or, alternatively, to replace Sutovskys 1998 ML320 with a new 1999 ML320 (on condition that Sutovsky pay the sales tax of about $ 3,000).
Sutovsky rejected all offers and in August 2000 filed this lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz, alleging breach of express and implied warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.) Mercedes-Benz answered, discovery ensued, and the case was tried to a jury in November 2001. At the conclusion of a five-day trial that included conflicting testimony by the parties experts about the condition of Sutovskys vehicle, a unanimous jury rendered its verdicts in favor of Mercedes-Benz and against Sutovsky. Sutovsky (now in propria persona although he was represented by counsel at trial) appeals.
DISCUSSION
Sutovskys brief offers a statement of facts unsupported by any references to the record, and a "legal argument" unsupported by any authority of any kind. As a result, he has waived any claim of error he might otherwise have had. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 14(a); Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, 86 Cal. Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d 193 [the judgment is presumptively correct and it is the appellants burden to show error]; Pringle v. La Chapelle (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1003-1004, fn. 2; Badie v. Bank of America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994, 920 P.2d 716.)
Were we to reach the merits of Sutovskys challenges to the trial courts evidentiary rulings, we would affirm. We have reviewed the rulings and find no abuse of discretion, no miscarriage of justice. (People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 201, 926 P.2d 365; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234, 851 P.2d 802; Kuffel v. Seaside Oil Co. (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 555, 567, 138 Cal. Rptr. 575.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Mercedes-Benz is entitled to its costs of appeal.
We concur: SPENCER, P.J., ORTEGA, J.