Filed 4/8/14 Crossroads Intercontinental v. Benichou CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CROSSROADS INTERCONTINENTAL,

LTD

. ,

Plaintiff and Responde nt,

v.

RICHARD BENICHOU,

Defendant and Appellant. B246851

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC414160)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Gregory Wilson Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Be nichou, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Herzlich & Blum and Allan Herzlich for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________2

Defendant and appellant Richard Benichou, who is in propria persona, appeals

from the default judgment enter ed in favor of plaintiff and respondent Crossroads

Intercontinental, Ltd. Apparently, appellant’s company and respondent had entered into

exclusive agreements for the manufacturing of clothing. After the parties began having

disagreements over various is sues, they sued each other. A default judgment was entered

in favor of respondent. We affirm on the ground that appellant has failed to meet his

burden on appeal to affirmatively show trial court error.

“‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presum ed correct . All intendments

and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent,

and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate

practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’” ( Denham v.

Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical

Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502.)

Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court requires all appellate briefs to

“ [ s ] upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page

number of the record where the matter appears

. ” It is well

- established that “‘ [i]f a party

fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record,

. . . the argument

[will be] deemed to have been waived. [Citation.]’” ( Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122

Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246

. ) The 20

- page opening brief does not contain a single citation to

the record. Because appellant has failed to provide the necessary citat ions to support his

arguments, we deem his arguments to be forfeited and do not address them

.
The fact that a party has been representing him self does not exempt him from the

mandatory appellate requirements. Litigants appearing in pro pria per sona are not entitled

to special exemptions from the California Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure and

are held to the same standards as a litigant represented by counsel

. ( Gamet v

. Blanchard

(2001) 91 Cal

. App

. 4th 1276, 1284 ; Nwosu v. Uba , supra, 122 Cal.App.4 th at pp. 1246

–

1247.)3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to recover its costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

__________________________, J.

ASHMANN

- GERST

We concur:

________________ _____________, P. J.

BOREN

____________________________, J.

CHAVEZ