Filed 1/3/23 Wilber v. Manzer CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RON WILBER,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DAN MANZER et al.,

 Defendants and 

Respondents.

2d Civil No. B315149

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2020-

00544758-CU-PO-VTA)

(Ventura County)

Ron Wilber appeals in propria persona from a judgment 

dismissing his first amended complaint with prejudice. 

Appellant submitted an opening brief but not a reply brief. 

Because his opening brief completely fails to comply with the 

rules of appellate procedure, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In his opening brief appellant states, “This is a 

commercial/industrial, tenant v. landlord case . . . .” Appellant 

was the tenant and respondents were the landlord. The lease 

describes the premises as “[a]n approximate 1,375 square foot 
2

industrial unit which is part of a larger multi-tenant industrial 

building.” 

In November 2020 appellant filed a first amended 

complaint against respondents. It consists of eight causes of 

action: fraud, assault, negligence, intentional/negligent infliction 

of emotional distress, elder abuse, unlawful attempt to evict, 

defamation, and pursuing eviction proceedings during 

California’s Covid-related eviction moratorium. 

Respondents filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike all eight 

causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 The trial court 

granted the motion as to some of appellant’s claims. As to the 

remaining claims, the court granted respondents’ motion for 

judgment on the pleadings with leave to amend. But appellant 

never filed an amended pleading. 

Respondents moved to dismiss the action pursuant to 

section 581, subdivision (f)(2), which provides, “The court may 

dismiss the complaint . . . when . . . after a demurrer to the 

complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to 

amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party 

moves for dismissal.” Respondents’ motion for judgment on the 

pleadings was “equivalent to a demurrer.” (Kapsimallis v.

Allstate Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 667, 672.) The court 

dismissed the action with prejudice. 

Rules of Appellate Procedure

“‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed 

correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to 

support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error 

must be affirmatively shown. . . .’” (Denham v. Superior Court

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure. 
3

(1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).) “To demonstrate error, 

appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by 

citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that 

support the claim of error. [Citations.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 

Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) “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; see also Gunn v. Mariners Church, Inc. 

(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 206, 217-218 [“‘an appellant must present 

a factual analysis and legal authority on each point made or the 

argument may be deemed waived’”].) “Hence, conclusory claims 

of error will fail.” (In re S.C., supra, at p. 408.)

The California Rules of Court (Rules) provide: “An 

appellant’s opening brief must . . . [p]rovide a summary of the 

significant facts limited to matters in the record.” (Rule 

8.204(a)(2)(C).) Each factual reference must be supported “by a 

citation to the volume and page number of the record where the 

matter appears.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) 

The Rules require that a brief “[s]tate each point under a 

separate heading or subheading summarizing the point . . . .” 

(Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “This is not a mere technical requirement; 

it is ‘designed to lighten the labors of the appellate tribunals by 

requiring the litigants to present their cause systematically and 

so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of 

ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised, as they 

read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being 

compelled to extricate it from the mass.’ [Citations.]” (In re S.C., 

supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) “The failure to head an 

argument as required by California Rules of Court, rule 
4

[8.204(a)(1)(B)] constitutes a waiver. [Citations.]” (Opdyk v. 

California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, 

fn. 4.)

Appellant’s Failure to Comply with 

Rules of Appellate Procedure

Appellant’s opening brief includes a 13-page statement of 

facts. The statement does not “[p]rovide a summary of the 

significant facts limited to matters in the record.” (Rule 

8.204(a)(2)(C).) The great bulk of the facts are outside of the 

record. “In reaching a decision on appeal an appellate court is 

governed by the record; [it] will not consider facts having no 

support in the record; and will disregard statements of such facts 

set forth in a brief.” (Oldenkott v. American Electric, Inc. (1971) 

14 Cal.App.3d 198, 207.)

Appellant’s argument consists of approximately one page. 

The only heading is “ARGUMENT.” Appellant does not “[s]tate 

each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing 

the point.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) There is no “meaningful legal 

analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts 

in the record that support [appellant’s] claim of error.” (In re 

S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) The only authority cited 

is section 425.16. The argument does not contain a single 

citation to the record. “We are not bound to develop appellant[’s] 

arguments for [him]. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal 

argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the 

contentions as waived.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 

164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.)

“[Appellant] is not exempt from the foregoing rules because 

he is representing himself on appeal in propria persona. Under 

the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. 
5

[Citations.] ‘[S]uch a party is to be treated like any other party 

and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than 

other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Thus, as is 

the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct 

rules of procedure. [Citations.]” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 

Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)

Because appellant failed to comply with the rules of 

appellate procedure, he has not overcome the presumption that 

the judgment is correct. (Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564.)

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their 

costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

BALTODANO, J.
Mark S. Borrell, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Ron Wilber, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

The Safarian Firm and Harry A. Safarian, Christina S. 

Karayan, Kitty Xie, for Defendants and Respondents.