Filed 2/29/24 Fox v. Radonix CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JOHN DANIEL FOX,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

RADONIX, INC. et al.,

 Defendants and Respondents.

 G062103

 (Super. Ct. Nos. 30-2021-01201867, 

 30-2021-01203509)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Walter P. 

Schwarm, Judge. Affirmed.

John Daniel Fox, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

J.M. O’Connor Law Group and Joseph M. O’Connor for Defendants and 

Respondents.

* * *
2

Plaintiff and Appellant John Daniel Fox appeals from an order granting a

motion brought by defendants (Radonix, Inc., Shahram Tork, Maryam Golbakhsh) to set 

aside default judgments Fox had entered against them.1Fox did not, however, file 

opposition to the motion in the trial court and has not furnished a reporter’s transcript of 

the hearing. By failing to oppose the motion in the trial court, Fox has forfeited his 

arguments that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous. 

If a party fails to file an opposition to the motion leading to the challenged 

order or judgment, and that party also does not provide a reporter’s transcript of the 

underlying proceeding, that party waives all arguments against the challenged order or 

judgment. (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 476, 483, fn. 

7; see Mangano v. Verity, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 217, 221 [defendant who failed to 

oppose motion in limine to exclude evidence forfeits his ability to argue on appeal that 

the evidence was improperly excluded]; Bell v. American Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 

Cal.App.3d 1589, 1602 [failure to oppose motion in the trial court waives objections on 

appeal].)

Indeed, “[a] failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the 

granting of the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) In addition, “‘“[i]t is 

fundamental that a reviewing court will ordinarily not consider claims made for the first 

time on appeal which could have been but were not presented to the trial court.” Thus, 

“we ignore arguments, authority, and facts not presented and litigated in the trial court. 

Generally, issues raised for the first time on appeal which were not litigated in the trial 

court are waived.”’” (Kashmiri v. Regents of University of California (2007) 156 

Cal.App.4th 809, 830.)

1

 Fox also requested the entry of a court judgment against each defendant. 

The trial court did not sign the proposed judgments and they were never entered. 
3

Accordingly, Fox has waived or forfeited all arguments he might have in 

support of a reversal and, as a consequence, has failed to meet the burden as an appellant 

of affirmatively demonstrating error. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) 

We therefore affirm the order granting the motion to set aside the defaults. Defendants

shall recover costs on appeal.

SANCHEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

GOODING, J.