Filed 6/12/13 Najafifard v. Mehdi CA2/7 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

HOURIEH NAJAFIFARD, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

AHMADI MEHDI, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B236300 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. LS021695) 

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leland B. 

Harris, Judge. Affirmed. 

Ahmadi Mehdi, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. 

No appearance by Hourieh Najafifard, Plaintiff and Respondent. 

___________________________ 
2

INTRODUCTION 

Ahmadi Mehdi appeals from the issuance of a restraining order against him. 

Because Mehdi failed to provide this court with a record sufficient to review this matter, 

we affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Hourieh Najafifard filed a CH-100 Request for Orders to Stop Harassment on 

July 8, 2011.1

 After conducting a hearing on the matter on July 27, 2011, the court issued 

a restraining order against Mehdi, to expire in two years. Mehdi timely appealed. 

The hearing was only reported in part, and the reporter’s transcript submitted on 

appeal indicated that the reporter left before the conclusion of the proceedings. On 

August 24, 2012, Mehdi made a motion in this Court to augment the record and to obtain 

a settled statement of the omitted proceedings. On September 13, 2012, no opposition 

having been filed, we ordered Mehdi to file a condensed narrative with the trial court and 

ordered a settled statement or corrected record to be prepared after hearing. The Superior 

Court file contains a two-page document designated as a condensed narrative filed by 

Mehdi on October 2, 2012. At the hearing on November 6, 2012, the court, appearing to 

conclude that the document was argument rather than a condensed narrative, issued a 

minute order reciting its findings, and the basis for its conclusions. 

In its order, the court indicated that it had no independent recollection of the 

original hearing, but had reviewed its minute order and the CH-100 and its attachments; 

the court drew the inference that, after hearing from the parties, it had determined that 

Najafifard was credible, and Mehdi was not, and on that basis sustained the petition by 

clear and convincing evidence. 

 

1 Because the Clerk’s Transcript and Supplemental Clerk’s Transcript do not 

contain this document, we have referred to the original Superior Court file for this and 

other essential documents. 
3

DISCUSSION 

The preparation of a settled statement on appeal is governed by California Rules 

of Court, Rules 8.130 (g) and 8.137. Rule 8.137 (b) requires that the appellant serve and 

file “a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings that the appellant believes necessary 

for the appeal.” The statement filed by Mehdi does not set forth any testimony, or 

summaries of testimony, but instead complains about issues the trial court omitted or 

failed to consider. The statement did not comply with the rules. 

The condensed narrative must accurately reflect the proceedings in the trial court. 

Where it is not objective and truthful, but contains only fragments of evidence, or 

partisan statements, the trial court is entitled to prepare a statement that reflects the actual 

proceedings. When appellant “fails to convince the trial judge that his statement 

accurately reflects the proceedings in question, the action of the trial judge, who heard 

and tried the case, must be regarded as final.” (Burns v. Brown (1946) 27 Cal.2d 631, 

636; see also St. George v. Superior Court (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 815,817 [trial judge has 

full power over the record so long as it does not act in arbitrary manner].) Mehdi has not 

demonstrated that the settled statement prepared by the trial court, in light of his own 

inadequate narrative, was arbitrary or inaccurate.2

 

Mehdi’s brief to this court is similarly insufficient. He fails to discuss the standard 

of review, and also fails to present any legal authority for any of his arguments.3

 As 

such, he has forfeited his arguments on appeal. “It is a fundamental rule of appellate 

review that the judgment appealed from is presumed correct and ‘“‘all intendments and 

 

2 This Court recognizes the difficulties faced by litigants, particularly those who are 

self-represented, who find themselves unprepared to reproduce the testimony at trial in 

the absence of a reporter’s transcript. Unless made aware at the outset of the proceedings 

of the rules governing settled statements, they may find their ability to appeal 

constrained. Nonetheless, in this case, appellant made no reasonable efforts to comply 

with the rules or the orders of this Court. 

3 Indeed, he attached a Table of Authorities clearly copied from some other 

document, some of which contains no page references, and some to pages on which no 

authority is found.
4

presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] An 

appellant must provide an argument and legal authority to support his contentions. This 

burden requires more than a mere assertion that the judgment is wrong. ‘Issues do not 

have a life of their own: If they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to 

authority, [they are] . . . waived.’ [Citation.] It is not our place to construct theories or 

arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness. 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. [Citation.]” (Benach v. 

County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852). “When an issue is 

unsupported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and 

discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary. [Citations.]” (Landry v. Berryessa 

Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700.) 

In any event, Mehdi’s brief essentially argues that the trial court erred in its 

assessment of credibility, and failed to consider Mehdi’s evidence, which contradicted 

that of Najafifard. As, on review, we do not reweigh such credibility determinations 

(Bertero v. National General Corp. (1974) 13 Cal.3d. 43, 64), those arguments would fail 

in any case. 

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. Mehdi is to bear his own costs on appeal. 

 ZELON, J. 

We concur: 

 PERLUSS, P. J. WOODS, J.