Filed 3/20/23 Property and Casualty Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Hoffman CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

HARTFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM HOFFMAN,

Defendant and Appellant;

THE GREENFIELD LAW FIRM et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 D079514

 (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019-

 00031953-CU-CO-CTL)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Joel R. Wohlfeil, Judge. Affirmed.

William Hoffman, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

Richard R. Leuthold for Defendant and Respondent Pamela Mitchell.

No appearances for Defendants and Respondents The Greenfield Law 

Firm and Anita Hafner.
2

William Hoffman appeals the judgment in an interpleader action 

disbursing among the claimants the proceeds of a settlement he had reached 

with his insurer in a prior action. He complains the superior court deprived 

him of property without due process of law in its handling of pretrial 

proceedings and trial. Hoffman has provided neither an adequate record for 

review nor a persuasive legal argument for reversal. We therefore affirm.

I.

BACKGROUND

In 2018, Hoffman submitted to his homeowner’s insurer, Property and 

Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford (Hartford), a claim for theft and 

vandalism of personal property. After denial of the claim, Hoffman filed an 

action against Hartford in the superior court for damages for breach of 

contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

Hartford removed the action to federal court. While the federal court action

was pending, The Greenfield Law Firm (Greenfield), Pamela Mitchell, and 

Anita Hafner each filed a notice of lien in the action. Hoffman and Hartford 

reached a settlement in March 2019, by which Hartford agreed to pay 

$24,225 and to file an interpleader action to resolve the competing claims to 

the money. 

In June 2019, Hartford filed a complaint in interpleader in the superior 

court in which it named Hoffman, Greenfield, Mitchell, and Hafner as 

defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (b).) The defendants filed answers 

to the complaint. 

Hartford deposited $24,225 with the court and moved for discharge 

from further liability and dismissal from the action. (Code Civ. Proc., 

§ 386.5.) The court granted the motion. 
3

Hoffman served Hafner with a request for admissions and a request for 

production of documents, which he claimed he needed to determine the 

validity of her lien. Hafner responded with objections and produced no 

documents. Hoffman filed a motion to compel a further response to the 

request for production of documents in February 2020. Hafner filed a 

response to the motion in which she stated the documents had been shredded 

or deleted. The motion was taken off calendar when the superior court closed 

during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the superior court’s register of 

actions, Hoffman never put the motion back on calendar. 

At a case management conference on December 5, 2019, the superior 

court set a trial date of October 23, 2020; set discovery and motion cut-off 

dates; and ordered the parties to participate in a mandatory settlement 

conference. The settlement conference was scheduled, continued several 

times, and ultimately taken off calendar when the superior court closed

during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the register of actions, the 

settlement conference was never put back on calendar. The trial date was 

also continued several times. 

On December 14, 2020, the superior court, apparently in connection 

with a motion for summary judgment, ordered disbursement of $8,075 from 

the settlement proceeds to Greenfield to satisfy its lien. The court set a 

bench trial for July 16, 2021, to determine the competing claims to the 

remaining $16,150 of the settlement proceeds Hartford had deposited. 

Mitchell and Hafner filed their trial briefs before the trial, but Hoffman did 

not file his brief until nearly three months after the trial. 

At the trial, which lasted less than half a day, there was no court 

reporter. According to the trial minutes, the superior court heard testimony 

from Hoffman and Hafner; considered several exhibits; and heard arguments
4

from Hoffman, Hafner, and Mitchell’s counsel. The court awarded $6,000 to 

Mitchell and $10,150 to Hafner. The court entered a judgment including its 

prior award to Greenfield, its awards at trial to Mitchell and Hafner, and an 

award of nothing to Hoffman. 

II.

DISCUSSION

Hoffman contends the superior court deprived him of property without 

due process of law in multiple ways. He complains the court: (1) denied him 

an opportunity to present his case at a mandatory settlement conference; 

(2) refused to allow him to conduct discovery; (3) refused to give him adequate 

time to obtain and exchange information on expert witnesses; (4) refused to 

give him adequate time to prepare for trial; (5) refused to give him adequate 

time to arrange for a court reporter or counsel as needed for trial; (6) refused 

to allow him to present his case fully at trial; (7) refused to read or consider 

his motions, documents, and trial brief; (8) refused to consider his objections

at trial; (9) refused to allow him to cross-examine Mitchell or Hafner; and 

(10) refused his request not to disburse the settlement proceeds while the 

appeal was pending. Hoffman asks us to reverse the judgment, vacate the 

awards to Mitchell and Hafner, order a mandatory settlement conference, 

order a new trial before a different judge, and order any other relief necessary 

to protect his due process rights. 

Hoffman’s appeal fails under basic principles of appellate review. The 

superior court’s judgment is presumed correct, and reversible error must be 

affirmatively shown. (E.g., Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 

564; Bowser v. Ford Motor Co. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 587, 610.) To obtain 

reversal, Hoffman must do more than merely complain of error. He must 

present a cogent legal argument that explains how the trial court 
5

prejudicially erred and that cites pertinent portions of the record and 

supportive legal authorities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C); 

Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 583, 597;

Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Assn. v. City of Poway (2007) 

149 Cal.App.4th 1460, 1480.) He also must provide a record adequate to 

permit review of his claims of error. (Bowser, at p. 610; Tudor Ranches, Inc. 

v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1433.) As we shall 

explain, Hoffman has not met his burden to establish reversible error.

Hoffman has presented no persuasive legal argument specific to any of 

his 10 complaints. After listing the complaints without any record citations, 

he cited the federal and state constitutional provisions prohibiting 

deprivation of property without due process of law (U.S. Const., 14th Amend., 

§ 1; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a)); a case from the United States Supreme 

Court stating that due process requires an opportunity to be heard (Grannis 

v. Ordean (1914) 234 U.S. 385, 394); a case from the Court of Appeal stating

that due process requires a fair and open hearing where the parties can offer 

evidence, inspect documents, and cross-examine witnesses (Rucker v. 

Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158); and a case

from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board stating that denial of an

opportunity for discovery is a denial of due process (Cedeno v. American Nat. 

Ins. Co. (1997) 62 Cal.Comp.Cases 939, 942). Hoffman did not explain how 

application of any of these authorities to the circumstances of the underlying 

interpleader action established a due process violation. Nor did he make any 

attempt to explain how any such violation resulted in “a miscarriage of 

justice,” which he must show to obtain a reversal of the judgment. (Cal. 

Const., art. VI, § 13.) “ ‘When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it 

but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we 
6

treat the point as waived.’ ” (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 

43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418.)

Hoffman’s complaints are also unsupported by the record. We consider 

each briefly.

The superior court did not prevent Hoffman from presenting his case at 

a mandatory settlement conference. The court ordered the parties to 

participate in one, which was set early in the case. The conference was taken 

off calendar, however, when the superior court closed during the COVID-19 

pandemic. Nothing in the record indicates that once the superior court 

reopened, Hoffman or any other party asked the court to put the settlement 

conference back on calendar or that the court refused to do so.

The superior court did not refuse to allow Hoffman to conduct 

discovery. He served written discovery requests on Hafner, and moved to 

compel a further response to the request for production of documents when 

she responded with only objections. That motion, like the settlement 

conference, was taken off calendar when the court closed during the COVID19 pandemic. Nothing in the record indicates that Hoffman ever tried to 

reschedule the motion for hearing, that the court refused to hear it, or that 

the court placed any limits on the scope of discovery.

Hoffman had plenty of time to conduct any expert witness discovery he 

deemed necessary, to retain counsel, to arrange for a court reporter, and 

otherwise to prepare for trial. The interpleader action was commenced in 

June 2019 and did not go to trial until July 2021. The case was not 

complicated in that the only issue the superior court needed to decide was the 

portion of the deposited settlement proceeds to which each claimant was 

entitled. Hoffman does not explain why, within the more than two years that 

elapsed between commencement and trial of the action, he could not hire a 
7

lawyer, retain an expert witness, arrange for a court reporter, and be ready

for trial. A party has a duty to exercise reasonable diligence in preparing for 

trial. (E.g., Tejada v. Blas (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1340.) If Hoffman 

needed more time, he could have requested a continuance. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 3.1332.) The record contains no such request.

Hoffman’s sixth through ninth complaints concern events that allegedly 

occurred at trial. He contends the superior court refused to read and consider 

his trial brief and other papers, to consider his objections, to allow him to 

cross-examine Mitchell or Hafner, and to allow him to present his case fully. 

The court could not have considered Hoffman’s trial brief, because it was not 

filed until almost three months after the trial concluded. And since the trial 

minutes state only Hoffman and Hafner testified, it is unclear how Hoffman 

could have cross-examined Mitchell. In any event, we cannot review the 

claims of error regarding events at trial because Hoffman has supplied us 

with neither a reporter’s transcript nor a settled statement. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rules 8.130, 8.137.)1 Without either, we cannot tell whether Hoffman 

raised any objections, whether he sought to cross-examine any witnesses, 

whether he sought to introduce evidence in addition to the testimony and 

documents referenced in the trial minutes, or whether any of the court’s 

rulings on these matters prejudiced him. “Where no reporter’s transcript [or 

settled statement] has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of 

the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed 

correct as to all evidentiary matters.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 

973, 992.) Hoffman’s failure to provide an adequate record of the trial 

1 The superior court’s register of actions contains entries for a proposed 

settled statement submitted by Hoffman and a related order. Neither 

document is included in the clerk’s transcript.
8

requires us to resolve his trial-related complaints against him. (Jameson v. 

Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609; Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. 

(1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 132; Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-

1296.)

Hoffman’s final complaint is that the superior court refused his request 

not to disburse the settlement proceeds while the appeal was pending. The 

record, however, contains no such request, and the register of actions 

contains no entry for one. “It is fundamentally unfair to fault a trial court for 

a reason it never had an opportunity to consider.” (Bullock v. City and 

County of San Francisco (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1093.) Even had the 

court denied Hoffman’s request regarding disbursement of the settlement 

proceeds, his remedy was to petition this court for a writ of supersedeas 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 923), not to seek reversal of the judgment in his opening 

brief.

In closing, we note Hoffman is representing himself in this appeal, and 

for a person untrained in the law that may be a difficult task. Nevertheless, 

“as a party appearing in propria persona, [he] ‘is entitled to the same, but no 

greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’ ” (Tanguilig v. 

Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.) An appellate court will not develop 

the appellant’s arguments, search the record for evidence to support the 

arguments, or consider matters outside the record. (Meridian Financial 

Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 684; Mitchell v. City of Indio 

(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 881, 890.) Hoffman’s failure to provide an adequate 

record or a brief containing a persuasive argument for reversal with citations 

to pertinent portions of the record and supportive legal authority requires us 

to reject his claims of error.
9

III.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

DO, J.