Opinion
A146575
03-01-2017
BARRY TEMPLIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAN LIU et al., 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG13684300) MEMORANDUM OPINION BY THE COURT:
We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
Before McGuiness, P.J., Siggins, J., and Jenkins, J.
Plaintiff Barry Templin, appearing in propia persona, appeals from a judgment in favor of Defendants Dan Liu and Shifang Fan following a court trial. Templin sued Defendant Liu, his former girlfriend and her mother, Fan, for allegedly taking his money and personal property. Templin alleged he gave Liu control of his finances to manage his money and grow his savings. He claimed Liu failed to return the funds and retained the money or used it for herself or her mother's benefit. Templin also claims he kept personal items, including electronics, tools, and clothing, at Liu's residence during their relationship, and that many of these items were never returned. At trial, Templin, in propia persona, prosecuted two causes of action against defendants, who also appeared in propia persona: (1) money had and received, and (2) conversion. Templin failed to prove both claims, and the court granted Liu and Fan a defense verdict. On appeal, Templin's opening brief seeks to reverse the judgment solely on the first cause of action for money had and received. Neither Liu nor Fan filed a response.
Templin stated he "would accept [the trial court's] judgment with regards to the cause for Conversion." --------
Based on the opening brief, we must dismiss Templin's appeal. The trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct on appeal, and it is the burden of the party challenging it to affirmatively demonstrate prejudicial error. (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125.) " 'The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel [or the litigant if, as here, the litigant chooses to represent himself]. Accordingly, every brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.' [Citation.]" (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050.) An appellant's failure to articulate intelligible legal arguments in the opening brief may be deemed an abandonment of the appeal justifying dismissal. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119.) Likewise, a failure to present arguments with references to the record and citation to legal authority can result in forfeiture of any contention that could have been raised on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) &(C); Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu).)
Here, Templin has failed to carry his burden. There is nothing in his brief that identifies any legal error in the trial court's ruling. The opening brief contains five sections entitled "I. Pleading Sufficiently Plead But Found Wanting; II. Respondents Liberal Use of Deceit and Lies; III. Liberal Construing of Pleadings; IV. Brief History; and V. Conclusion." These sections contain a collection of unfocused and unintelligible arguments and snapshot summaries of background facts without proper references to the record. Templin's legal discussion focuses on due process, fraud, and negligence law, which has no relevance to the claim for money had and received, the only claim at issue in this appeal, for which there is no legal discussion. Further, there is nothing in Templin's brief that identifies any legal error in the trial court's ruling, nor is there any clear, reasoned argument as to why his appeal mandates reversal. Even Templin acknowledges the potential absence of any error, noting that the trial court "might have ruled correctly in the judgment." Moreover, other than five record citations largely to past pleadings on the first page of a nearly twenty-page brief, Templin includes no other record citations. Since the issues raised in Templin's opening brief are not properly or sufficiently developed to be cognizable and his brief does not conform to appellate court rules, we decline to consider them and treat them as forfeited.
Templin's appeal appears premised on his request for his "pleading to be viewed for what it is, written by a non lawyer." We are sympathetic to the fact that Templin is representing himself without the benefit of an attorney, but his status as a self-represented litigant does not exempt him from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve his obligation to present intelligible argument supported by the record and legal authority. (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246-1247.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.