Filed 3/11/14 Sharma v. Goswami 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SHWETA SHARMA,
Respondent,

v.
ABHISHEK GOSWAMI,
Appellant

. D062749

(Super. Ct. No. DV035329)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Susan D.
Huguenor, Judge. Affirmed.
Abhishek Goswami, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
This appeal arises out of a five

- year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO)

the co urt granted in favor of plaintiff Shweta Sharma and against defendant Abhishek
Goswami. On appeal, Goswami, acting in propria person, asserts (1) the court abused its

discreti on in granting a five

- year DVRO, (2) the court did not take into account the len gth
of time the parties had been separated and the geogr aphical distance of the parties, (3)2

Sharma did not present facts necessary to demonstrate that an immediate and present
dang er of domestic violence existed, and (4) defense counsel ' s performance was
ineffective by not allowing Goswami to present evidence beneficial to his defense. We
conclude that Goswami has forfeited his claims on appeal because he has failed to
support his arguments with citations to the record.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2012 Sharma filed her complaint seeking a DVRO. The complaint alleged
that Goswami abused Sharma several times during a period from April through

December 201 1. Goswami responded by denying that any abuse had occurred.
In July 2012 t he matter came on for trial. After hearing the testimony of Sharma
and Goswami, the court granted a restraining order for a period of five years, finding

Sharma to be the more credible witness.

DISCUSSION
California Rules of Court, rule 8.204 , provides in part:

" (a) Contents [¶] (1) Each brief must: [¶] (A) B egin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and ot her authorities cited; [¶] (B) S tate each point under a separate heading or sub heading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by cit ation of authority; and [¶] (C) S upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears

. " (Italics added.)

" If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record,
that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived

. "
( Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 84 9, 856.)3

In his statements of facts, Goswami only provides three citations to the trial

record . One citation merely states how long he has been living in the United States and

the fact that for a time he lived in Illinois

. T he other two are to Sharma ' s DVRO petition , where he disputes her allegations of domestic violence, but again without any citation to

the record. The remainder of Goswami ' s statement of facts , disputing the factual basis

for Sharma ' s DVRO petition, is unsupported by any citation to the record. Therefore, we
conclude that Goswami has forfeited his claims on appeal.
We are mindful that Goswami is acting in pro pria per sona . However, a self

represented party on appeal "' is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the

sa me, but no greater consideration than othe r litigants and attorneys. [Citation.] '
[Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro

. per

. litigants must follow correct rules
of procedure. " ( Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.)

DISPOSITI ON
The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McINTYRE, J.