1

Filed 3/9/22 Enriquez v. Sholokhova CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

VICTOR ENRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

YELENA SHOLOKHOVA,

Defendant and Respondent.

 

 A162372

 (San Mateo County

 Super. Ct. No. 19-FAM-01592B)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Appellant Victor Enriquez and respondent Yelena 

Sholokhova have a child together. In the parties’ action to 

establish parentage of the child, the trial court ordered Enriquez 

to pay debts he owed Sholokhova and to refinance a car loan to 

remove Sholokhova from the loan. The sole issue raised by 

Enriquez on appeal is whether the trial court had subject matter 

jurisdiction over the car and debts when it issued the order. 

Enriquez argues the trial court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction because the family court proceeding only involved 

1 We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion 

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, 

standard 8.1.
2

child custody and visitation and child support. We conclude he 

has forfeited this argument. 

The appellant bears the burden in demonstrating error. (In

re Marriage of Davis (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 294, 301.) To 

demonstrate error, the appellant must provide a cogent argument 

supported by legal authority and citations to the record. 

(Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 

583, 597.) The reviewing court may disregard contentions 

unsupported by legal authority or citations to the record. (Young

v. Fish & Game Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1191.) 

We do so here because Enriquez has not addressed the 

merits of his appeal in a meaningful way. He cites to Family 

Code sections 2010, 2011, and 3422 as support for his argument, 

but those sections say nothing about the court’s jurisdiction over 

the parties’ property and debts in cases other than marital 

dissolution and legal separation proceedings. Enriquez fails to 

explain how those sections demonstrate the court lacked 

jurisdiction in this case. It is not our role to construct arguments 

on appellants’ behalf. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 

164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.) Enriquez also has not supported his 

factual assertions regarding the subject matter of the family 

court proceeding with citation to the record. 

We understand Enriquez filed his opening brief in propria 

persona. But self-represented litigants are held to the same 

standards as parties represented by attorneys. (Kobayashi v. 

Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

Because Enriquez has forfeited his subject matter 

jurisdiction argument (Young v. Fish & Game Com., supra, 24

Cal.App.5th at p. 1191), we express no opinion on the merits of 

his position.
3

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.
4

_______________________

BURNS, J. 

We concur:

____________________________

JACKSON, P.J. 

____________________________

SIMONS, J.

A162372