F iled 2/29/ 24 Fox v. Radoni x 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered 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

- 0120 1867

, 30

- 2021

- 01203509)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a n 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 d efendants (Radonix, Inc., Shahram Tork, Maryam Gol bakhsh ) to set

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

opposition to the motion in the trial court and has not furnish ed 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 erro neous.

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 or der 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 forfeit s 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 waive s objections on

appeal].)

Indeed, “ [a] failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a con sent 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 Univ ersity 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 b urde n 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.