Filed 7/17/14 ARM v. Bruzzone CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ARM, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. MICHAEL BRUZZONE, Defendant and Appellant. H039438 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-12-CH-004644)

Appellant Michael Bruzzone, acting in propria persona here and in the court below, appeals from a workplace violence restraining order entered against him pursuant

to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 (hereafter “section 527.8”). On appeal, appellant contends that the “the damning 3 ye ar restraining order sh ould be struck down and expunged from the Santa Clara Superior Cour t and State record.” As set forth below, appellant has failed to presen t an intelligible legal argument supported by citation to facts in the appellate record, and we therefore will affirm.

B ACKGROUND On December 5, 2012, ARM, Inc. (hereaft er “ARM”) filed a petition, pursuant to section 527.8, seeking a re straining order prohibiting ap pellant from engaging in the following conduct: harassing or intimidating five named ARM employees; engaging in violence or threats of violence against the named employees; following or stalking the2 named employees; contacting the named employe es; and coming within 300 yards of the named employees or their workplace. The pe tition alleged that appellant was terminated from employment at ARM, that appellant “expr essed frustration and anger at having been ‘blacklisted’ at ARM,” that appellant had en gaged in “erratic” behavior and exhibited signs of “paranoia” in recent weeks, and th at appellant made a “credible threat of violence” against AR M employees. On January 15, 2013, appellant filed a “Declaration of Mike Bruzzone in Opposition to Restraining Orde r as a Constructed Fraud by Certain ARM Employees for Continuation as Employment Bl acklisting Device Conciously [ sic ] in Parrallel [ sic ] with Intel Corp. Cartel Crime Ring Su b Group.” In the declaration, appellant asserted that he was “being framed in a continuing Intel inter corporate sub group network crime,” that “Intel has ARM in its sights,” and that a “c ontinuous fandango” was occurring at ARM. The trial court held a hearing on the se ction 527.8 petition on January 15, 2013. One of the ARM employees named in the petition testified at the hearing. Appellant also testified at the hearing. At the conclusi on of the hearing, the court granted ARM’s section 527.8 petition, and it ruled that the rest raining order would issu e for three years. The court issued a “Workplace Violence Restraining Order After Hearing” on January 15, 2013. The restraining order prohibited appellant from engaging in the following conduct: harassing the five named ARM employees ; committing acts of violence or making threats of violence ag ainst the named employees; following or stalking the named employees; contacting th e named employees by any means; taking action to obtain the named employees’ addre sses; and coming within 300 yards of the named employees or their workplace. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. This appeal followed. 1

1 ARM filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” which this court ordered to be considered with the appeal . We deny that motion.3 D ISCUSSION Appellant’s Argument Appellant’s argument is confusing, and his contentions seem to be unrelated to the validity of the restraining order. Specifi cally, he asserts that ARM employees and “conspirators” are “framing Appellant, in a cons tructed fraud, that are the very old crimes too misprision, defame, discred it, disqualify a Federal and Stat e’s witness, to obstruct the administration of justice in th is and other Federal, State, and private consumer class action law matters concerning Intel Microsof t Ziff Davis Combined Cartel Operation [ sic ].” He further asserts: “It is not the ma nner of United States Justice to terminate a man’s employment search too blacklist him by fraudulent construction before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against charges by exposing their 180 month conspiracy to harm him [ sic ].” In support of his argument, appellant cites the following authorities: federal case law discussing the crime of assault, federal case law pertaining to the Sixth Amendment, and federal case law regarding the right to cross-examination. He fails to cite to th e appellate record in making his argument. Appellant Has Faile d to Show Error “An appealed judgment or challenged ruling is presumed correct.” ( Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 ( Bullock ).) Thus, the “appellant has the burden to show error.” ( Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80.) “An appellant must affirmatively de monstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority.” ( Bullock, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 685.) “When an issue is unsupported by per tinent or cognizable legal argument it may

be deemed abandoned and di scussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary.” ( Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 6 99-700.) A reviewing court4 need not consider an issue when the appellant “has pres ented no intelligible legal argument.” ( Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545.) “We are not bound to develop appellants’ argumen ts for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument . . . allows this cour t to treat the contentions as waived.” ( In re Marriage of Falcone (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.) “To demonstrate error, [an] appellant must present . . . citations to facts in the record that support th e claim of error.” ( In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.A pp.4th 396, 408.) “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the

record in search of error . . . . It is entitled to the assistance of coun sel.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal , § 701, p. 769.) A reviewing court is “not required to

search the record to ascer tain whether it contains support for [the appellant’s] contentions.” ( Mansell v. Board of Administration, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545.) “When an appellant decides to represent himself in prop ria persona, ‘he is entitled to the same, but no greater, considerati on than other litigants and attorneys. [Citations.]’ ” ( Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1 89, 193.) “A pro. per. litigant is held to the same restrictive procedural ru les as an attorney.” ( Ibid .) Here, appellant has not shown that the tr ial court erred in issuing the restraining order. He fails to discuss section 527.8, he fa ils to cite any case la w pertaining to section 527.8, he fails to cite to any facts in the record that suggest that the restraining order was invalid, and he fails to present a coherent ar gument that describes possible flaws in the restraining order. Rather, he makes an incomprehensible argument regarding a “conspiracy,” a “constructed fraud,” and a “Combined Cartel Operation.” Although appellant briefly mentions some federal lega l principles, he never explains how those legal principles pertain to the restraining order issued agains t him, and he never cites to portions of the record where those legal principles were potentially implicated. Accordingly, because appellant has failed to present an intelligible legal argument5 supported by citation to facts in the appellate record, we will affirm the restraining order issued against him.

D ISPOSITION The order appealed fr om is affirmed.

__________ _______________ _____________ RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

___________________ _________________ PREMO, J.

___________________ _________________ ELIA, J.