Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. 37-2008-00094388-CU-WT-CTL, Judith Hayes, Judge.
McDONALD, J.
FACTUAL AND PROCECDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Zenaida Victorino appeals a judgment in favor of defendant Scripps Health (Scripps) entered after Scripps's motion for summary judgment was granted. Victorino, employed by Scripps for a brief period before her employment was terminated, filed a complaint against Scripps apparently alleging a variety of causes of action sounding in wrongful termination and Labor Code violations. Scripps moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no triable issue of fact that Scripps (1) terminated Victorino's employment for the legitimate reason that Scripps reasonably requested Victorino to submit to a drug test and she refused, and (2) her employment termination was unconnected to any disability she purportedly suffered.
We must surmise the claims asserted by Victorino because the complaint is not part of the record on appeal.
The court granted summary judgment in Scripps's favor and, after judgment was entered, Victorino appealed. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
Scripps correctly points out in its respondent's brief that Victorino, in her opening brief, does not support her claims of error with either citations to the record or pertinent legal authority as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(A)-(C).
The reason for requiring an adequate record is crucial. "A fundamental principle of appellate practice is that an appellant ' "must affirmatively show error by an adequate record.... Error is never presumed.... 'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent....' " ' " (Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532.) It is the appellant's responsibility to include in the appellate record the portions of the record relevant to the issues on appeal. (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125.) " ' "Matters not presented by the record cannot be considered on the suggestion of counsel in the briefs." ' " (In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 875, disapproved on other grounds by In re Fields (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1063, 1070, fn. 3.)
The reasons for requiring legal argument and citations to legal authority are equally important. The appellant must provide citations to legal authority and argument in support of a claim of error, or a court may deem the claim waived, because the court is "not bound to develop appellants' arguments for them." (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.) " 'When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.' " (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862.)
The rules are equally applicable to Victorino. " 'When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he [or she] is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' " (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 1125.) Although Victorino seeks to challenge the propriety of the order granting summary judgment, her briefs contain no record reference to any of the materials filed in support of or in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Indeed, in her five-page recitation entitled "STATEMENT OF FACTS, " there is not a single citation to any part of the appellate record. Accordingly, we must disregard Victorino's purported factual bases for claiming there were triable issues of material fact on any of her causes of action against Scripps.
Victorino's brief did cite to certain pages, but those pages were apparently copies of documents never introduced below, and hence were the subject of Scripps's motion to strike those materials. (The Termo Co. v. Luther (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 394, 404.) Because this court's order of September 17, 2010, granted Scripps's motion to strike those materials, they are not part of the record on appeal.
Victorino's contentions in her section entitled "Argument" fare no better. She cites only one case and one statute (Civ. Code, § 52), but does not explain how those legal authorities are germane to whether there were triable issues of material fact on any of the causes of action she pleaded against Scripps, or how any triable issues made the order granting summary judgment erroneous. Because Victorino has not shown the record contains the purported factual bases for her claims, and she has not presented citations to the law governing each of these issues (much less analysis of such authority), we deem her claims of error waived. " 'The reviewing court is not required make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.' [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant's contentions on appeal. [Citation.] If no citation 'is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived.' [Citation.] We find this is an appropriate case in which to apply the waiver rule." (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115.)
The only clear citation is to Maywood Glass Co. v. Stewart (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 719, although she also refers to "Munson v. Del Taco, " which we presume intended to refer to Munson v. Del Taco, Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661.
Victorino has not shown error by an adequate record and any meaningful discussion of the relevant facts and legal principles; we therefore conclude she has waived the issues raised on appeal. This conclusion leaves undisturbed the trial court's judgment, which is presumed to be correct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Scripps is entitled to costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McINTYRE, J.