Filed 11/12/20 The Law Firm of Fox and Fox v. Arias CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE LAW FIRM OF FOX 

AND FOX,

Plaintiff and 

Respondent,

v.

REBECCA ARIAS,

Defendant and 

Appellant.

 B294270

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC590351)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Terry Green, Judge. Affirmed.

Rebecca Arias, in pro. per., for Defendant and 

Appellant.
2

The Law Firm of Fox and Fox, Frank O. Fox, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Defendant and appellant Rebecca Arias appeals the

August 1, 2018 judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent 

the Law Firm of Fox and Fox, a general partnership 

composed of Frank O. Fox and Claire S. Fox (the Fox firm), 

after a court trial.

Rebecca’s1 briefing fails to demonstrate error through 

coherent argument, including citation to the record and 

supporting legal authority. Finding nothing in the briefs or 

the record to support Rebecca’s request for reversal, we 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Anthony Arias had three daughters, Rebecca, Lupe 

Kardoulias, and Antoinette Ovall. The family members have 

been involved in a number of lawsuits, both before and after 

Anthony’s death in 2010. To provide context to Rebecca’s

arguments in the current appeal, we take judicial notice of 

the following nonpublished opinions issued by other 

divisions of this court: Arias v. Kardoulias (Dec. 14, 2011, 

B232363); Arias v. Kardoulias (Estate of Arias) (Dec. 21, 

1 Because different family members share the same 

last name, we will refer to individuals by their first names 

for ease of reference. No disrespect is intended.
3

2017, B264101); and Arias v. Kardoulias (Aug. 8, 2018, 

B271724). (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) [judicial notice may 

be taken of court records Arias v. Kardoulias]; Evid. Code, 

§ 459; Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1171, 

1173 [court may take judicial notice of prior unpublished 

opinions in related appeals on its own motion].)

Labor case

Rebecca filed a wage claim against Anthony for 

housekeeping and personal care services, later amending her 

claim to name Lupe. The Labor Commission made an award 

for less than Rebecca’s original claim. Rebecca appealed

without counsel, and Division Three of this court affirmed in 

2011, because the notice of appeal was filed one day too late. 

(Arias v. Kardoulias, supra, B232363.)

Probate case

After Anthony’s death, his three daughters fought over 

administration of his estate. A number of separate actions 

were consolidated into a single proceeding with the primary 

issue being Anthony’s capacity in December 2009, when he 

signed a will and grant deeds transferring three pieces of 

real property. (Estate of Arias, supra, B264101.) Rebecca

hired the Fox firm to represent her in the proceeding,

signing an initial retainer agreement in July 2010 and a 

subsequent agreement in November 2010. Antoinette also 
4

hired the Fox firm, signing a retainer agreement in October 

of 2010. The probate judge, Lesley C. Green, determined 

that Anthony had the requisite capacity when he executed 

the will and grant deeds at issue, that Rebecca failed to 

overcome the presumption of capacity, and Rebecca and 

Antoinette failed to prove undue influence. (Estate of Arias,

supra, B264101.)

Rebecca appealed without counsel, and in December 

2017, Division Three affirmed the probate court’s decision, in 

part because the record on appeal was inadequate.

Real property case

Rebecca sued Lupe, asserting various claims in 

connection with the proceeds and sale of a parcel of real 

property in Mexico. The trial court granted Lupe’s motion 

for summary judgment, holding that each of Rebecca’s 

claims were either time barred or barred by the doctrine of 

res judicata because they had been litigated previously 

during a 2008 case filed by Rebecca against Anthony and the 

family’s trust. (Arias v. Kardoulias, supra, B271724.) In 

August 2018, Division Three affirmed the trial court’s 

decision, reasoning that Rebecca had failed to carry her 

burden to affirmatively demonstrate error. (Ibid.)
5

Collection case – current appeal 

In 2015, the Fox firm sued Rebecca, Antoinette, and 

Antoinette’s daughter Alyse2 for payment under the retainer 

agreements in the probate case. Rebecca filed an answer, in 

which she asserted that her only form of income was SSI and 

she did not own the real property identified in the complaint. 

After appearing in pro per at a case management conference 

in December 2015, Rebecca failed to appear at subsequent 

court conferences. The case was continued a number of 

times until the July 9, 2018 trial date. On April 2, 2018, 

Rebecca was served by mail with notice of the July 9, 2018 

trial date. On July 6, 2018, the Fox firm dismissed Alyse 

with prejudice.

A court trial was held on July 9, 2018. The only parties 

present for the trial were the Fox firm, represented by Frank 

O. Fox, and Antoinette, appearing in propria persona. 

Rebecca did not appear at trial. The court awarded the Fox 

firm $15,158.00 and ordered the Fox firm to give notice and 

submit a proposed judgment. On August 1, 2018, the court 

entered judgment against Rebecca and Antoinette and in 

favor of the Fox firm, for the amount awarded at trial. 

According to the form judgment, Rebecca was properly 

served with notice of trial and did not appear, and no party 

requested a statement of decision.

2 Alyse signed a retainer agreement with the Fox firm 

in April 2013 for representation in a case filed against her by 

Lupe’s son, George Kardoulias.
6

Rebecca filed a notice of appeal on December 5, 2018. 

On January 23, 2019, she filed a proposed settled 

statement.3 According to the case summary, the Fox firm

filed objections to Rebecca’s proposed settled statement, 

together with its own proposed settled statement on May 28, 

2019. On August 23, 2019, Rebecca filed an “answer to set 

aside/vacate judgment and settled statement hearing.” 

Other than Rebecca’s proposed settled statement, none of the 

other documents appear in the appellate record.

4

At a hearing on September 10, 2019, Judge Terry 

Green considered both proposed settled statements, noting 

that the Fox firm’s statement comported with his memory of 

the proceedings, because the probate case had taken place in 

his wife’s courtroom. His recollection was that on the trial 

date, Antoinette was present and signed a settlement for a 

reduced fee amount. Judge Green recalled that Rebecca did 

not appear in court for trial or for many other court dates. 

Rebecca offered documentation of multiple surgeries and 

hospitalizations, noting that her sister and her sister’s 

3 Rebecca also filed three different versions of the form 

titled Notice Designating Record on Appeal. The first was 

filed on December 19, 2018, the second on January 23, 2019, 

and the third on April 10, 2019.

4 Both Rebecca and the Fox firm attached exhibits to 

their briefs, but those exhibits did not include the Fox firm’s 

proposed settled statement or objections, a motion to vacate 

judgment, or an “answer to set aside/vacate judgment and 

settled statement hearing.”
7

attorney knew she was in the hospital. Judge Green noted 

that no one had notified the court, and there was no evidence 

Rebecca had been incapacitated for a three-year period. 

Judge Green gave Rebecca and Frank Fox an opportunity to 

state on the record what they wanted the Court of Appeal to 

know. Rebecca recounted that she met Frank (one of the two

general partners of the Fox firm) after he was recommended 

by the Los Angeles Bar Association; she interviewed several 

attorneys, and he told her he could take her will contest. 

According to Rebecca, Frank knew she had no money, she 

had to sell life insurance, he was aware of the actions her 

sisters had taken against her, but he still wanted to 

represent her sister. Frank stated that Rebecca and 

Antoinette both signed conflict waivers and believed their 

position in the probate case was stronger because they were 

both attacking the same will as unfair. Rebecca responded 

that Frank wanted to get 30 percent from each of them, 

Frank told Rebecca he would drop the case unless Antoinette 

joined, and Rebecca lacked sufficient funds to hire a new 

attorney. The court ended the hearing by adopting the Fox 

firm’s proposed settled statement and including as part of 

the record “a package of documents, which includes 

correspondence, the proposed settled statement from 

[Frank], correspondence from [Rebecca].” The documents 

mentioned do not appear in the record on appeal. The 

September 10, 2019 minute order states that transcript of 

the proceeding is to be deemed the settled statement, and 

that the motion to vacate judgment is denied.
8

DISCUSSION

In the portion of her opening brief labeled 

“Conclusion,” Rebecca respectfully asks this court to reverse 

the trial court’s judgment and to vacate an abstract filed at 

the recorder’s office. Because nothing in the briefs or the 

record demonstrates error on the part of the trial court, we 

affirm the judgment.

“Appealed judgments and orders are presumed correct, 

and error must be affirmatively shown. (Denham v. 

Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)” (Randall v. 

Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935.) “‘In order to 

demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing 

court with some cogent argument supported by legal 

analysis and citation to the record.’ [Citation.]” (United 

Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 

Cal.App.5th 142, 153 (United Grand).)

Rebecca’s brief lacks headings for any points of 

argument, and the arguments we are able to discern are not 

supported by legal analysis and citations to the record. (Cal. 

Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [party’s brief must “[s]tate 

each point under a separate heading or subheading . . . and 

support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation 

of authority”].) The Fox firm’s respondent’s brief also lacks 

any citations to the record or relevant legal authority.

The appellate court will not take on the burden of 

scouring the record to find support for the various factual 

and legal claims made by either side. (Harshad & Nasir 
9

Corp. v. Global Sign Systems, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 

523, 527, fn. 3.) Although we may exercise our discretion to 

consider arguments for which we can discern a legal or 

factual basis in the briefs, no such basis is apparent. “‘We 

are not obliged to make other arguments for [appellant] 

[citation], nor are we obliged to speculate about which issues 

counsel intend to raise.’ [Citations.] We may and do 

‘disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by 

pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by 

which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to 

adopt.’ [Citation.]” (United Grand, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 153.)

As far as we can discern from her brief, most of 

Rebecca’s arguments concern longstanding grievances she 

has with Lupe and Antoinette, none of which are relevant to 

the current case.

To the extent Rebecca attempts to argue that the 

retainer agreement between herself and the Fox firm was 

invalid or unenforceable, or that her performance under the 

contract is somehow excused based on her financial 

situation, her claims are waived because she did not appear 

at trial to raise those arguments in a timely manner. “‘“[A] 

reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a 

ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in 

the trial court. [Citation.] The purpose of this rule is to 

encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial 

court, so that they may be corrected.” [Citation.] The 

critical point for preservation of claims on appeal is that the 
10

asserted error must have been brought to the attention of 

the trial court.’ [Citations.] ‘“It is unfair to the trial judge 

and to the adverse party to take advantage of an alleged 

error on appeal where it could easily have been corrected at 

trial. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (DiPirro v. 

Bondo Corp. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 150, 177–178.)

To the extent Rebecca contends the judgment is invalid 

because she did not receive notice of the trial date or had an 

excuse for her failure to attend, the record on appeal does 

not support her argument. At the settled statement hearing, 

the trial court noted that over many months, Rebecca never 

appeared at many of the pre-trial or trial hearings, never 

informed the court of her inability to attend hearings, and 

there was no evidence to support her position that she was 

incapacitated for three-year period during which the case

had been pending.

References in Rebecca’s briefing to lodestar attorney 

fee adjustments do not demonstrate any error, because the 

judgment was for damages only, and did not include an 

award of attorney’s fees. (See Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 

Cal.4th 1122, 1131–1132 [describing process of calculating 

attorney fee award using lodestar method].)

Discerning no viable argument on appeal, we affirm

the judgment.
11

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff and respondent the 

Law Firm of Fox and Fox, a general partnership composed of 

Frank O. Fox and Claire S. Fox, is awarded costs on appeal.

MOOR, J. 

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.