Filed 11/4/13 Longh enry v. Pete Hill Construction C o. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MICHAEL LONGHENRY,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

PETE HILL CONSTRUCTI ON COMPANY,

INC.,

Defendant and Respondent. D061535

(Super. Ct. No.

37

- 2009

- 00086807

- CU

- PO

- CTL)

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

Prager, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Longhenry, in pro. per., for Plai ntiff and Appellant.

Grimm, Vranjes & Greer, Eugene P. Kenny and Ryan R. Fick for Defendant and

Respondent.

In this negligence actio n, plaintiff Michael Longhenry appeals a judgment entered

after a jury verdict in favor of defendant Pete Hill Constructio n Company, Inc. (Hill).

Longhenry contends the trial court erred by : granting his attorney ' s request to be relieved

on the eve of trial; denying his new counsel ' s request to reopen discovery ; granting Hill ' s2

motions in limine ; and denying Longhenry ' s requ est to make a " mini opening statement "

accompanied by presentat ion of demonstrative evidence.

" On appeal, we must presume the trial court ' s judgment is correct. (See Denham

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

. . . .) In service of that rule, we adopt all

intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment or order unless the record expressly

contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583

. . . .) " ( Nielsen v.

Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) " It is an appellant ' s duty to present a record

from which the appellate court can determine whether there has been error; failure to do

so results in affirmance. " ( Niederer v. Ferreira (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1509.)

" [A]n appellant must not only present an analysis of the fac ts and legal authority

on each point made, but must also support arguments with appropriate citations to the

material facts in the record. If he fails to do so, the argument is forfeited. ( Duarte v.

Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856

. . . .) " ( Nielsen v. Gibson,

supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 324.) " ' This court is not required to discuss o r cons ider

points which are not .

. . supported by citation to authorities or the record. ' " ( Kim v.

Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 .)

Longh enry ' s designated record on appeal does not include a reporter ' s transcript or

a complete clerk ' s transcript. 1 His briefs rely on facts unsupported by citations to the

record. In his reply brief, Longhenry suggests that Hill, or this court, shou ld procure a

1 The clerk's transcript includes only three documents directly bearing on

Longhenry's contentions: his trial brief regarding the use of demonstratives in opening

statements and two motions in limine by Hill. The clerk's transcript does not include the

motion to be relieved, the motion to reopen discovery or opposition to those motions;

opposition to the motions in limine; opposition to the request to mak e a "mini opening

statement " ; or a complete record of the court's reasoning in ruling o n any of the motions.3

reporter ' s transcript. " The ordinary civil litigant is not entitled to free transcripts on

appeal at public expense. " ( Leslie v. Roe (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 104, 107.) " [ W ] e will

not take it upon ourselves to fulfill [Longhenry ' s] responsibili ties. " In re Marriage of

Wilcox (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 492, 499 , fn. omitted .) The record before us shows no

error; accord ingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

McDONALD, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O ' ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.