Filed 11/17/15 Prikupets v. Prikupets CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

IRINA PRIKUPETS,

Respondent,

v.

VLADIMIR PRIKUPETS,

Appellant.

 A144470

 (San Francisco County

 Super. Ct. No. FDV-13-810575)

Appellant Vladimir Prikupets appeals from a renewed restraining order issued 

after a hearing in a domestic violence prevention case initiated by respondent Irina 

Prikupets. Because appellant has not met his burden of establishing reversible error, we 

will affirm the order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 24, 2013, respondent filed a request for a domestic violence 

restraining order1against appellant. At the time, respondent was 77 years old and 

appellant was 81 years old. Although the parties reportedly had divorced in Russia in 

1975, they both resided with their adult daughter and her husband. In her petition,

respondent alleged appellant had yelled and threatened her and their daughter. According 

to respondent, the police had twice been called to the home following his outbursts. On 

the second occasion, he was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold and taken to a 

 

1

See Family Code section 6200 et seq.
2

hospital. Respondent and her daughter’s family were also given an emergency protective 

order. 

On October 25, 2013, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order. 

Appellant was ordered to move out of the family residence. 

On November 8, 2013, appellant filed a response to the request for the restraining 

order. 

On February 26, 2014, after multiple continuances, the trial court granted a 

restraining order. The order was set to expire on February 26, 2015. 

On January 2, 2015, respondent filed a request to renew the restraining order. In 

her request, she alleged appellant had violated the restraining order many times by 

telephoning her and her daughter, and by coming to the home and leaving objects on her 

doorstep with written messages that were hurtful and upsetting. 

On January 21, 2015, the trial court granted a two-year restraining order against 

appellant. This appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s opening brief, entitled “America—USA—Fashist [sic] Country 

Gestapo,” consists solely of a one-page “Statment [sic] of the case.” Without providing 

any citations to the appellate record, he asserts respondent and their daughter had falsely 

accused him of abusing drugs and alcohol, and of being mentally ill. The brief does not 

specify any error on the part of the trial court. His reply brief does reference the alleged 

incidents that occurred around October 2013, but fails to address the events leading to the 

trial court’s issuance of the renewed restraining order. 

An “ ‘order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all 

intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’ ” (Schnabel v. 

Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718.) An appellant has the burden of affirmatively 

showing prejudicial error (City and County of San Francisco v. Funches (1999) 

75 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245) and of ensuring that an adequate record exists for review 

(In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102). The presumption of correctness also imposes 

a burden on the appellant to present argument and authority on each point; otherwise, the 
3

point is deemed abandoned. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) An appellate 

court is not required to discuss or consider points that are not adequately presented. (Kim 

v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.) In addition, the fact that an 

appellant proceeds in propria persona does not alter these standards, as “[p]ro. per. 

litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court

(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

In addition to failing to address the circumstances leading to the January 21, 2015 

order, appellant has stated no identifiable legal issue, nor has he supported any 

contentions that he raises in his briefs with a cognizable legal argument. In his briefing 

on appeal, he fails to make any legal arguments to support any theory of error. Without 

such a showing, we must resolve the appeal against him (Hernandez v. California 

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

In rejecting his challenges to the trial court’s order, we are mindful that appellant

represents himself. Self-representation, however, does not allow an appellant to avoid 

the obligation to make an affirmative showing of error. Our Supreme Court has “ma[d]e 

clear that mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. 

Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply 

equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation.” 

(Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985.) Courts of Appeal have 

similarly held: “ ‘When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he is entitled to the 

same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. . . . Further, the in 

propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney.’ ” 

(Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125–1126; accord, 

County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 

122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) Thus, since appellant did not comply with the rules 

requiring all appellants to state a cogent legal argument supported by authority, he has 

forfeited any claims of error.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.
4

_________________________

DONDERO, J.

We concur:

_________________________

HUMES, P.J.

_________________________

MARGULIES, J.

A144470