Filed 10/25/22 Marriage of Gibson CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 FOUR

In re the Marriage of JAMES

and KARRIE GIBSON.

 B307240

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 17PSFL00745)

JAMESGIBSON, III,

Respondent,

v.

KARRIE GIBSON,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Bruce G. Iwasaki, Judge. Affirmed.

Cliff Dean Schneider,for Appellant.
2

Law Offices of Michael Labrum and Michael Labrum,

for Respondent.

_____________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

This appeal is from a judgment dissolving the marriage 

between appellant Karrie Gibson and respondent James 

Gibson. In the proceedings below, appellant represented 

herself. Based on her pretrial misconductthe trial court

deemed appellant a vexatious litigant and imposed evidence 

preclusion sanctions. At trial, respondent was the sole 

witness. Appellant questioned respondent on crossexamination and recross-examination. The court ended each

examination after appellant persisted, in the face of repeated 

admonitions, in asking irrelevant questions. On appeal, 

appellant(now represented by counsel) contends the court

abused its discretion in allowing her inadequate time for 

cross-examination. We conclude: (1) appellant has forfeited 

her contention by failing to support it with reasoned analysis 

and citations to relevant portions of the record; and (2) on 

the merits, appellant has failed to show the court abused its

discretion in declining to allow additional time for crossexamination. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

A. Appellant’s Pretrial Misconduct

In September 2017, respondent filed a petition for 

dissolution of the parties’ marriage. Appellant, proceeding 
3

in propria persona, requested and received a temporary 

award of spousal support pending trial. Appellant also 

received an award of $5,000 for the purpose of retaining 

counsel, but never did so. 

In June 2019, the trial court (Judge Sarah J. Heidel)

ordered appellant to pay approximately $1,500 in 

respondent’s attorney fees and costs as discovery sanctions, 

finding appellant had acted with the “specific intentto delay 

the proceedings.” The court scheduled a trial readiness 

conference, at which appellant failed to appear. In October 

2019, the court (Judge LawrenceP. Riff) issued an order for 

appellantto show cause why the court should not impose 

evidence preclusion sanctions against her. That same 

month, respondent filed a motion for orders deeming 

appellant a vexatious litigant and requiring her to obtain 

judicial permission before filing new litigationin propria

persona, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 391, 

subdivision (b)(3), and 391.7. 

In January 2020, after a hearing on its order to show 

cause, the court ordered that due to appellant’s

noncompliance with pretrial and trial readiness orders,

appellant would be precluded at trial from calling witnesses, 

moving exhibits into evidence, and testifying on financial 

issues. In February 2020, after a hearing on respondent’s 

vexatious litigant motion, the court (Judge Heidel) granted

the motion and issued a prefiling order. The court found

appellant was a vexatious litigant because she had: (1) filed

10 unmeritorious motions; (2) failed to appear at several 
4

hearings on her own motions; (3) acted in discovery with the 

intent to delay;(4) failed to use her $5,000 award for the 

purpose it was made, viz., to retain counsel; and (5) admitted

to respondent that she intended to force him to incur 

excessive attorney fees.

B. Trial

In March 2020, the court (Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki)

presided over a two-day bench trial. Respondent was the 

sole witness. On direct examination, respondenttestified 

primarily about facts relevant to four disputed issues: (1) the

proper division of the parties’ community property and 

debts; (2) whether appellant’s temporary award of spousal 

support should be terminated; (3) whether appellant should 

be ordered to reimburse respondentfor various payments he 

had made to the community from his separate property; and 

(4) whether appellant should be ordered to pay a share of 

respondent’s attorney fees as sanctions for her vexatious

litigation conduct(in addition to the fees previously ordered 

as discovery sanctions, which remained unpaid). 

On the second day of trial, appellant cross-examined

respondent. The court sustained relevance objections to 

many of appellant’s questions.

1 The court repeatedly

admonished appellant to ask relevant questions, specified 

relevant topics, and advised her that it would end her cross1

These included: “Am I a liar?” “Are you a liar?” and “Why 

did you date and ultimately marry me?”
5

examination if she persisted in asking irrelevant questions. 

After appellant received an answer to another question, the 

court observed that appellant was “mouthing something to 

the witness” and admonished her that it would end her 

cross-examination if she persisted in such misconduct. 

When appellant responded by arguing that she had been

“maligned,” the court ended her cross-examination. The 

court assured appellant she would be allowed to ask

additional, appropriate questions on recross-examination. 

Following redirect examination, appellant conducted 

recross. Appellant received answers to over 30 questions

(some rephrased by the court in a manner she confirmed to 

be accurate). The court sustained objections to appellant’s 

other questions, most frequently on relevance grounds.

Again, the court repeatedly told appellant that it would end

her examination if she persisted in asking irrelevant 

questions. When appellant protested the court’s sustaining 

of another relevance objection, the court ended the 

examination. Appellant then exited the courtroom; although 

the court repeatedly asked her to stay and advised her that 

trial would proceed in her absence, she responded only by 

expressing an intentto sue the court for racial 

discrimination and “shouting at the court”from the 

courtroom entrance.

2

2

Appellant cites no support in the record for her assertions

that she was allowed only 20 minutes for recross-examination.

Appellant began her cross-examination at 9:10 a.m. and exited 

(Fn. is continued on the next page.)
6

The court conducted its own examination of 

respondent, after which respondent rested his case. The 

court announced its findings and ordered respondent to 

submit a proposed judgment. Respondent submitted a 

proposed judgment, to which appellantfiled no objection. 

The court entered the proposed judgment of dissolution. The 

judgment contained detailed findings concerningthe 

disputed issues addressed in respondent’s testimony, viz.,

division of the parties’ community property and debt,

spousal support, respondent’s requested reimbursements, 

and respondent’s requested award of attorney fees. 

Appellant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion 

in allowing her inadequate time for cross-examination of 

respondent. As this court has long recognized: “‘A trial court

has a clear duty to supervise the conduct of the trial to the 

end that it may not be unduly protracted and that other 

litigants too may have their day in court. In carrying out 

this duty the court may confine cross-examination within 

reasonable limits and may curtail cross-examination which 

relates to matters already covered, or which are irrelevant. 

These are matters clearly within the court’s discretion and 

the courtroom (immediately after recross) one hour and 35 

minutes later, at 10:45 a.m. The record does not disclose the 

precise duration of cross- and recross-examination.
7

only a manifest abuse thereof will require a reversal.’”

(Dollinger v. San Gabriel Lanes (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 705, 

710-711; see also People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 579

[in capital murder case, notwithstanding defendant’s 

constitutional right to confront witnesses, ““‘the trial court 

retains wide latitude in restricting cross-examination that is 

repetitive, prejudicial, confusing of the issues, or of marginal 

relevance’””].) 

We conclude appellant has forfeited her challenge to 

the trial court’s exercise of discretion by failing to support

her contention with reasoned analysis and citations to 

relevant portions of the record. (See Hernandez v. First 

Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 [“‘[T]o 

demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing 

court with some cogent argument supported by legal 

analysis and citation to the record’”].) Appellant citesnone 

of respondent’s testimony on direct examination. She cites 

no question she asked respondent in the time allowed for 

cross- and recross-examination, and no answer he provided.

She suggests no additional question she might have asked if 

allowed more time. She cites no finding by the court to 

which such an additional question might have been relevant. 

In short, she does not explain why her time for crossexamination was assertedly inadequate, much less how this 

inadequacy is reflected in the record. It is not this court’s 

duty to scour the record unguided or to develop appellant’s 

argument for her. (See ibid. [“We may and do ‘disregard 

conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent 
8

legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the 

appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt’”]; 

WFG National Title Insurance Company v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 881, 894 [“Rather than 

scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant 

has forfeited a point urged on appeal when it is not 

supported by accurate citations to the record”].) Accordingly, 

we conclude that by filing a deficient appellate brief,

appellant has forfeited her challenge to the court’s exercise 

of discretion.

We further conclude appellant has failed to show, on 

the merits,that the court abused its discretion in declining 

to allow her additional time for cross-examination.

Appellant concedes the court demonstrated patience with 

her on recross, during which it assisted her in rephrasing 

several questions. During the time allowed for recross alone, 

appellant received answers to over 30 questions. Appellant 

does not dispute that her other questions were irrelevant or 

otherwise improper, as determined by the court in its

unchallenged evidentiary rulings. The court ended 

appellant’s time for cross-examination only after appellant 

persisted, in the face of repeated admonitions, in asking 

irrelevant questions. Appellant’s conduct reasonably could 

have led the court to determine that allowing additional time

for cross-examination would yield no material evidence. 

Appellant identifies nothing in the record to support a 

contrary expectation. This failure is fatal to her claim that

the court abused its discretion. (See Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl 
9

Shoe Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, 412 [trial court acted 

within its discretion in limiting time for cross-examination, 

where appellant“fail[ed] to specify on which issues the crossexamination was inadequate”]; Dollinger v. San Gabriel 

Lanes, supra, 205 Cal.App.2d at 710 [trial court acted within 

its discretion in sustaining objections to questions posed on 

cross-examination, where “it [wa]s not shown how the 

questions asked would establish any relevant or material 

evidence”].)3In sum, we conclude that in addition to 

3

The cases cited by appellant do not assist her. Several

upheld limitations on cross-examination or other means of

presenting evidence. (See Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co., supra,

22 Cal.App.4th at 412; Rosenthal v. Rosenthal (1961) 197 

Cal.App.2d 289, 302-305 [trial court acted within its discretion in 

limiting time for attorney fee hearing over party’s objection that

he desired additional time to present evidence]; Gantner v. 

Gantner (1952) 39 Cal.2d 272, 278-279 [trial court exhibited no 

bias at child custody hearing in rejecting party’s proffered 

document and question to witness, where “nothing more [wa]s

shown than that the trial judge refused to allow [party] to 

develop immaterial matters”].) Another undermines appellant’s

suggestion that she was entitled to additional time merely 

because she was proceeding in propria persona. (See Lombardi v. 

Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los Angeles (1955) 

137 Cal.App.2d 206, 207-210 [trial court properly declined to

explain to self-represented plaintiff how to lay foundation for 

document, even though plaintiff’s failure to do so resulted in 

granting of defense motion for nonsuit].) Finally, appellant’s 

remaining cases are inapposite, as they concerned absent 

witnesses who were not subject to any cross-examination. (See 

Pointer v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 406-408 [criminal 

defendant’s confrontation rights were violated at trial by

(Fn. is continued on the next page.)
10

forfeiting her contention by filing a deficient appellate brief,

appellant has failed to show the court abused its discretion

in declining to allow her additional time for crossexamination.4

admission of victim’s preliminary hearing testimony in lieu of 

calling victim as witness]; Greene v. McElroy (1959) 360 U.S. 474, 

475-499, 508 [federal agency improperly revoked plaintiff’s

security clearance on basis of statements from individuals who 

were neither identified nor called as witnesses].)

4 We need not address respondent’s argument that appellant 

forfeited her objection on appeal by failing to raise it in the trial 

court. 
11

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded his 

costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 MANELLA, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

COLLINS, J.