Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC401785, Aurelio Munoz, Judge.
Mahmood Yoonessi, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, James M. Humes, Chief Assistant Attorney General, James M. Schiavenza, Assistant Attorney General, and Joel A. Davis, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Respondents Barbara Yaroslavsky and Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Jonathan K. Renner, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen P. Acquisto, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Kimberly Graham, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent Ronald Diedrich.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, Victor Paladino and Michael McCartin, Assistant Solicitors General, for Defendants and Respondents Eliot Spitzer, Daniel C. Kredenster, and the State University of New York at Buffalo.
WILLHITE, J.
Plaintiff and appellant Mahmood Yoonessi (Yoonessi) appeals a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of demurrers to his complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.
In 2002, Yoonessi’s license to practice medicine in the State of New York was revoked. In 2003, the Medical Board of California similarly revoked his license to practice medicine in California, and in 2008, it denied Yoonessi’s request to reinstate his license. Since 2002, Yoonessi has instituted numerous court proceedings stemming from the revocation of his medical licenses.
Yoonessi filed a complaint in California Superior Court in November 2008 against California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Medical Board member Barbara Yaroslavsky, and former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The defendants demurred to the complaint and the trial court sustained the demurrers with leave to amend, finding that the complaint was “rambling, libelous and uncertain.” Yoonessi filed a first amended complaint, adding additional defendants including physicians Philip Disaia and Daniel Kredenster, the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo), and Director of the California Office of Administrative Hearings Ronald Dietrich. The amended complaint alleged numerous causes of action, including breach of contract, libel, malicious prosecution, myriad violations of the federal Civil Rights Act, and various constitutional and anti-trust violations.
At a July 27, 2009 hearing on the defendants’ demurrers to the first amended complaint, the trial court indicated that its tentative ruling was to dismiss the complaint against New York residents Eliot Spitzer, Daniel Kredenster, and SUNY Buffalo because they had no contacts with California that would justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. The court indicated that it would sustain the demurrers brought by Barbara Yaroslavsky, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Ronald Diedrich because the complaint was rambling and not intelligible. The court also noted that these defendants appeared to be entitled to quasi-judicial or quasi-prosecutorial immunity, and Yoonessi had not shown he had complied with the Government Claims Act, Government Code section 900 et seq., or exhausted his administrative remedies.
Although the court indicated that it would grant Yoonessi another opportunity to amend his complaint as to Yaroslavsky, Brown, and Diedrich, Yoonessi requested that the court “make this ruling appealable and permanent.” The court asked: “Are you saying that you do not wish to amend and you want the court to just sustain the demurrer without leave to amend?” Yoonessi replied that he did. The court therefore dismissed the complaint as to all defendants, per Yoonessi’s request, and entered judgment in respondents’ favor on September 1, 2009. Before the judgment was entered, Yoonessi appealed from the July 27, 2009 minute order sustaining the demurrers. Because a minute order is nonappealable, however, we construe Yoonessi’s appeal as being from the September 1, 2009 judgment subsequently entered in favor of respondents. (Estate of Silver (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 937, 942.)
Defendant Philip Disaia’s demurrer was not heard until September 14, 2009, at which time the court ruled that to the extent any part of the first amended complaint remained viable following the court’s earlier order dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, Disaia’s demurrer was sustained with leave to amend.
On September 14, 2009, the trial court granted a motion to declare Yoonessi a vexatious litigant, and Yoonessi subsequently filed a notice of appeal from that order. We have taken judicial notice of the record in that appeal, which was dismissed for Yoonessi’s failure to comply with the vexatious litigant prefiling order.
DISCUSSION
Yoonessi appears to argue that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for recusal. However, he fails to support his contentions with citations to the record, and as such, we need not consider his argument that the trial judge should have recused himself. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Regents of University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 826, fn. 1.) Even if he had included adequate citations to the record, “[t]he determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d); see Swift v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 878, 882.)
The remainder of Yoonessi’s brief is largely unintelligible, comprised of allegations unsupported by cogent legal argument and failing to address the grounds relied upon by the trial court in dismissing the first amended complaint. Because Yoonessi has failed to support his contentions with “‘reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point[s] as waived. [Citations.]’” (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862; see In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 [“The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contentions as waived.”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) In addition, by requesting that the trial court sustain his demurrer without leave to amend such that the ruling would be appealable immediately, Yoonessi has forfeited any argument that the trial court should have permitted him to amend his complaint. (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 613.) Finally, we note that to the extent Yoonessi complains that he should not have been designated a vexatious litigant by the trial court on September 14, 2009, that order is not properly the subject of the instant appeal, but instead was the subject of Yoonessi’s appeal from the court’s September 14, 2009, which appeal has since been dismissed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Appellant to bear costs on appeal.
We concur: EPSTEIN, P. J., MANELLA, J.