Filed 8/29/22 Briceno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RANDY BRICENO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

 B314222

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 19STCV24288)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Olivia Rosales, Judge. Affirmed.

Randy Briceno, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Fisher & Phillips, Aymara Ledezma and Danielle S. 

Krauthamer for Defendant and Respondent.

——————————
2

Plaintiff Randy Briceno appeals from the order of dismissal 

entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the 

demurrer filed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells 

Fargo) to Briceno’s fifth amended complaint. We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

On July 12, 2019, Briceno, acting in propria persona, 

initiated this action by filing a civil complaint against Wells 

Fargo. Briceno then filed a series of amended complaints without

seeking leave to amend. The trial court struck all of the 

pleadings filed by Briceno except for the third amended 

complaint, which it deemed the operative complaint.

On January 15, 2020, Wells Fargo submitted a demurrer to 

the third amended complaint. Briceno did not file an opposition. 

On February 19, 2020, the trial court sustained the demurrer to 

the third amended complaint on the grounds that the complaint 

failed to state a cause of action and failed to allege sufficient facts 

to give Wells Fargo notice of its alleged wrongful conduct. The 

court granted Briceno leave to further amend the complaint.

On February 13, 2020, prior to the trial court’s ruling on

the demurrer to the third amended complaint, Briceno filed 

a fifth amended complaint. The body of the fifth amended

complaint consisted of a single handwritten paragraph: “The 

defendant is a corporation. Plaintiff has suffered wage loss &

other damages. Plaintiff still is suffering wageloss [sic] & other 

damages. Specified intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

1 The description of the factual and procedural background

is based on the documents included in the appendix filed by Wells 

Fargo concurrently with its respondent’s brief. Although Briceno 

also filed a one-page document entitled “APPENDIX” with his 

opening brief, he did not attach any documents to his appendix.
3

mental faculty & harm is consecutive. I need defendants to stop 

& repair wageloss [sic] & damages. Also case needs to be solved, 

because Plaintiff faces a substantial threat of irreparable 

damages & wageloss [sic]. Plaintiff prays for judgement [sic] for 

costs of suits; for compensatory personal injury, in the amount of 

$G64 [sic].” 

On April 16, 2021, Wells Fargo filed a demurrer to the fifth

amended complaint. Wells Fargo argued that the fifth amended 

complaint did not state a cause of action, and was ambiguous and 

unintelligible. Briceno again did not file an opposition, and he 

did not appear at the hearing on the demurrer. On May 11, 2021, 

the trial court sustained the demurrer to the fifth amended 

complaint without leave to amend. The court found the fifth 

amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute

a cause of action, and was uncertain because it did not provide 

Wells Fargo with notice of its alleged wrongful conduct. 

On June 21, 2021, the trial court granted Wells Fargo’s 

request to dismiss the action with prejudice. Briceno appeals 

from the order of dismissal. 

DISCUSSION

I. Briceno failed to provide an adequate record or any 

reasoned argument to support his appeal.

It is a fundamental rule of appellate review that an 

appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, and error must 

be affirmatively shown. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 

609; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) “ ‘In 

the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions 

in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate 

court.’ ” (Jameson, at p. 609.) To overcome this presumption, the

appellant has the burden of providing the appellate court with an 
4

adequate record demonstrating error. (Ibid.; Maria P. v. Riles

(1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) “ ‘Failure to provide an adequate 

record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against 

[the appellant].’ ” (Jameson, at p. 609.)

It is also the appellant’s burden to provide reasoned 

argument and citations to relevant legal authority to support 

that argument. (Lee v. Kim (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 721.) On 

appeal, “ ‘ “ ‘the party asserting trial court error may not . . . rest 

on the bare assertion of error but must present argument and 

legal authority on each point raised.’ ” ’ ” (Hoffmann v. Young 

(2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1029.) Accordingly, “[w]hen an 

appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support 

it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat 

the point as forfeited.” (Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 

48 Cal.App.5th 1014, 1075.) These “same rules apply to a party 

appearing in propria persona as to any other party.” (Flores 

v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 

Cal.App.4th 199, 205.) 

On appeal, Briceno seemingly seeks to challenge the trial 

court’s ruling sustaining Wells Fargo’s demurrer to the fifth

amended complaint without leave to amend. Briceno did not, 

however, provide an adequate record for appellate review of 

any purported claim of error. The California Rules of Court

require an appellant who uses an appendix to include, among 

other items, any document filed in the superior court which “is 

necessary for proper consideration of the issues.” (Cal. Rules 

of Court, rule 8.124(b)(1)(B).) At the start of his opening brief, 

Briceno attached a portion of the register of actions from the 

superior court file. At the end of his brief, Briceno also attached

a one-page document entitled “APPENDIX” that listed by name
5

some of the documents that must be included in an appendix, 

such as the notice of appeal and the appealed judgment or order. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.124(b)(1)(A), 8.122(b)(1).) Apart from 

the register of actions, however, Briceno did not actually attach 

any documents to his appendix or his brief. He therefore failed 

to satisfy his burden of providing this court with a record that 

would permit meaningful review of his appeal. On that basis 

alone, the trial court’s ruling should be affirmed. (Jameson v. 

Desta, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609 [“ ‘ “if the record is inadequate 

for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of 

the trial court should be affirmed” ’ ”].) 

In his briefing on appeal, Briceno also fails to articulate 

any coherent argument to support a claim of error. Briceno’s 

brief primarily consists of excerpts of provisions contained in the 

Penal, Labor, Evidence, Civil Procedure, and Civil Codes. 

Briceno did not cite any of these statutory provisions in his fifth 

amended complaint, nor does he explain on appeal how they

pertain to any purported cause of action in his complaint or any 

alleged wrongful conduct by Wells Fargo. Briceno simply 

reiterates the vague allegations in his complaint that his case 

“needs to be solved” because he faces “a substantial threat of 

irreparable nervous system damages and wage loss.” While 

Briceno’s brief also includes a few cursory references to the end of 

a “customer [r]elationship with Wells Fargo,” he does not explain 

what action, if any, Wells Fargo took to end that relationship or 

how any such action gives rise to a cognizable legal claim. “It is 

not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine 

the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness.” (Delta 

Stewardship Council Cases, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 1075.) 

Because Briceno failed to present any reasoned argument as to 
6

why the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to his fifth 

amended complaint, he has forfeited any challenge to that ruling 

on appeal. 

II. The trial court did not err in sustaining Wells 

Fargo’s demurrer to the fifth amended complaint 

without leave to amend.

Even if not forfeited, any claim of error in the trial court’s 

ruling on the demurrer fails on the merits. “ ‘In reviewing an 

order sustaining a demurrer, we examine the operative complaint 

de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a 

cause of action under any legal theory.’ ” (Mathews v. Becerra

(2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 768.) “Where the demurrer was sustained 

without leave to amend, we consider whether the plaintiff could 

cure the defect by an amendment. The plaintiff bears the burden 

of proving an amendment could cure the defect.” (T.H. v. 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162.)

Here, the trial court properly sustained Wells Fargo’s 

demurrer to Briceno’s fifth amended complaint without leave 

to amend because the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient 

to state a cause of action and was uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., 

§ 430.10, subds. (e), (f).) Generally, a “ ‘complaint . . . need only 

contain a “statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, 

in ordinary and concise language” [citation] and will be upheld 

“ ‘so long as [it] gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable 

preparation of a defense.’ ” ’ ” (Morris v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 

N.A. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 279, 292.) Briceno’s fifth amended 

complaint, however, failed to satisfy these minimum pleading 

requirements, and failed to sufficiently apprise Wells Fargo of 

any claims being alleged. While Briceno vaguely stated in his 

complaint that he suffered “wage loss” and “other damages”
7

due to some sort of “personal injury,” he did not tether these

allegations to any specific cause of action or to any alleged

wrongful conduct by Wells Fargo. Moreover, although Briceno’s 

fifth amended complaint included a single reference to 

“intentional infliction of emotional distress,” it did not allege any 

facts to establish the elements of such claim. The complaint 

is devoid of any factual allegations describing the nature of 

Briceno’s relationship with Wells Fargo or the manner in which

Wells Fargo caused Briceno to suffer the damages claimed.

Briceno did not argue below, and does not argue on appeal, 

that he should be granted leave to further amend his complaint. 

He also fails to identify what additional facts, if any, he could

allege in his complaint to state a cause of action against Wells 

Fargo under any legal theory. Because Briceno has had multiple 

opportunities to amend his complaint and has not demonstrated 

how further amendment could cure the existing defects, the trial 

court did not err in sustaining Wells Fargo’s demurrer to the fifth 

amended complaint without leave to amend. 
8

DISPOSITION

The order of dismissal is affirmed. Respondent to recover 

its costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ADAMS, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the 

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.