Court Opinion

ID: 9925688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 19:02:16.324132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:22.726559
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/22/24 Alfaro v. SCO, LLC CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 YANIRA ALFARO,                                                       B326036

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                                   (Los Angeles County
                                                                      Super. Ct. No. 20STCV38042)
           v.

 SCO, LLC,

           Defendant and Respondent.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
      Law Offices of M. C. Marks and MaryEtta C. Marks for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
      Christensen Hsu Sipes, Edward E. Sipes and
Renee De Golier for Defendant and Respondent.
                 ____________________________
       Plaintiff and appellant Yanira Alfaro challenges the entry
of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent SCO,
LLC (SCO). In the trial court, Alfaro did not file a separate
statement in opposition to summary judgment. On appeal, she
offers no legal analysis to support her claims of error, and as a
result, has forfeited her arguments. Additionally, she fails to
demonstrate error because the facts deemed admitted negate
essential elements of her alleged causes of action. We affirm.

                        BACKGROUND
      Alfaro filed the complaint in propria persona. Apparently,
MaryEtta C. Marks represented Alfaro in the subsequent trial
court proceedings.1 Marks represents Alfaro on appeal.

1.    Complaint
      On October 5, 2020, Alfaro filed a complaint against SCO
(erroneously sued as Shakey’s Pizza #012). She alleged causes of
action for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
and an unspecified intentional tort. Alfaro averred she ate “red,
raw and bloody” chicken at defendant’s restaurant. She claims
she almost died as a result, and shortly after arriving that day at
work, had to be hospitalized.

2.    Motion for summary judgment
       SCO filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the
facts deemed admitted show as a matter of law that Alfaro

      1 Marks claims she did not substitute in as Alfaro’s
attorney of record in the trial court but instead made special
appearances.

                                    2
cannot establish essential elements of her causes of action.2 SCO
represented, and it is undisputed, that the court deemed the
following facts admitted: (1) the chicken plaintiff ate at Shakey’s
was “properly cooked/prepared”; (2) “SCO did not cause Plaintiff
damages”; and (3) Plaintiff did not sustain any injuries from the
chicken she ate at SCO’s restaurant. These facts were included
in SCO’s separate statement.
      SCO also attached as exhibits in support of its motion for
summary judgment a copy of the requests for admission, its
motion to have the facts in those requests deemed admitted, and
the notice of ruling indicating that the facts were deemed
admitted.
      The attachments in support of SCO’s motion for summary
judgment show that, on April 30, 2021, SCO served the requests
for admission on Alfaro and sent a courtesy copy to attorney
Marks. On behalf of Alfaro, Marks requested additional time to
respond indicating Alfaro would provide responses on October 18,
2021. On November 17, 2021, SCO filed a motion for a court
order deeming the truthfulness of several of the requests for
admission. Also on November 17, 2021, SCO served the motion
on Alfaro and sent Marks a courtesy copy. SCO’s notice of ruling
states that on December 15, 2021, the court held a hearing on the
motion to deem matters admitted. Alfaro was represented at the
hearing by attorney Marks. The court deemed several of the
requests for admission admitted and awarded no sanctions. The

      2   Alfaro has not included the motion for summary
judgment in the record on appeal. Respondent requested judicial
notice of that motion. By prior order, this court granted judicial
notice of the motion for summary judgment and other papers
filed in the trial court.

                                    3
court ordered SCO to give notice. On December 17, 2021, SCO
served the notice of ruling on Alfaro and a courtesy copy on
attorney Marks.

3.    Opposition to motion for summary judgment
       Alfaro filed an opposing memorandum of law to the motion
for summary judgment. Alfaro argued SCO failed to show the
absence of a triable issue of fact. Specifically, Alfaro contended:
“The Defendants [sic] do not have any evidence to show that
there are no triable issues of fact. Instead, the Defendants [sic]
want to rely on inferences, innuendo and argument. The law is
clear that with respect to a motion for summary judgment only
actual evidence and facts supported by evidence will suffice for
the Defendants [sic] to establish that there are no triable issues
of fact.”
       The opposition did not include a separate statement of
material facts or identify any disputed fact.

4.    Ex parte motion to continue the hearing on summary
      judgment
       On October 25, 2022, the date for the summary judgment
hearing, Alfaro filed an ex parte application to continue that
hearing. She claimed she needed the continuance because, “[a]t
the present time Attorney Marks does not have the financial
ability to have the large volume of documents regarding the
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment translated and or
interpreted from English into Spanish. Therefore, currently
Plaintiff is not aware of the contents of the Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.” The ex parte application indicated the
hearing on the summary judgment motion was scheduled for
October 25, 2022.

                                    4
5.    Hearing on the summary judgment motion
       At the October 25, 2022 hearing, the court denied Alfaro’s
ex parte motion for a continuance of the summary judgment
hearing. The court and Alfaro’s counsel engaged in the following
discussion, which Alfaro states shows “a bias and negative
opinion of the Appellant.”
       The court asked SCO’s counsel if counsel received the late
filed opposition to summary judgment and counsel responded she
was able to view it on the court’s website but did not receive it
from Alfaro. The court asked Marks whether she was fully
engaged or making a special appearance and Marks responded
that she was making a special appearance.
       Marks reported, “The only thing I can say on my behalf is
that Ms. Alfaro’s case has been plagued with my own personal
life. A combination of health issues, and then major office issues
in that my whole computer system is gone. So all of that has
affected her.” Marks continued arguing that SCO should have
propounded discovery in Spanish.
       The court stated, “The opposing papers must include
separate statements responding to each material fact, identify
other material facts. Without a separate statement of undisputed
facts with references to supporting evidence, it’s impossible to
demonstrate the existence of disputed facts.”
       Marks did not respond to the absence of a separate
statement but indicated that she did not have the means to hire a
Spanish language interpreter.
       The court denied Alfaro’s ex parte motion to continue the
summary judgment motion. The court denied Alfaro’s request to
“submit objections,” a request Alfaro did not more specifically
explain and has not further explained on appeal. The court

                                   5
stated that “[a]ll submissions are done. Today is the day of the
ruling . . . .”

6.    Trial court grants summary judgment
       The trial court granted SCO’s motion for summary
judgment, stating, “There are no triable issues as to any material
facts, and SCO is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
because (1) SCO did not breach any duty owed to Plaintiff;
(2) SCO did not legally cause Plaintiff’s alleged injuries; (3)
Plaintiff did not suffer any damages as a result of the alleged
Incident; and (4) SCO did not act with purpose and/or intent of
any kind to cause Plaintiff harm.” The court’s minute order
states that Alfaro’s failure to file a separate statement was itself
a sufficient ground for granting the summary judgment motion.
       After the trial court issued its order granting judgment,
Alfaro filed a motion to tax costs and another document entitled
“supplement to and in further support of motion for an order
striking and/or reducing costs (taxing costs)” (supplement).
(Boldface & capitalization omitted.) On appeal, Alfaro cites to
statements in that supplement to the effect that the chicken at
Shakey’s did not taste right and she did not consume any food
within 24 hours of eating it. Alfaro also cites her supplement for
the proposition that she went to the emergency room and was
diagnosed with salmonella poisoning and typhoid fever and paid
over $19,000 for her hospital stay. Alfaro cites the same
supplement for the proposition that she no longer enjoys eating
out and no longer eats chicken. Finally, Alfaro relies on her
supplement for the proposition that she “had re-ocurring bouts of
Typhoid fever, Diverticulitis, urinary problems, headaches,
muscle[ ] aches and cramps, stomach swelling and bloating” and
her symptoms were worsening. None of these purported facts

                                    6
was included in her opposition to summary judgment and Alfaro
fails to demonstrate that these facts were properly before the
trial court or can be considered on appeal.

                          DISCUSSION
       We review the trial court’s entry of summary judgment
de novo. (Arnold v. Dignity Health (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 412,
422.) In general, we presume that a judgment is correct. (Jones
v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007)
152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376.) On appeal from a summary
judgment, the appellant has the burden of showing error.
(Claudio v. Regents of University of California (2005)
134 Cal.App.4th 224, 230.) “ ‘ “As with an appeal from any
judgment, it is the appellant’s responsibility to affirmatively
demonstrate error and, therefore, to point out the triable issues
the appellant claims are present by citation to the record and any
supporting authority. In other words, review is limited to issues
which have been adequately raised and briefed.” [Citation.]’
[Citation.]” (Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 455.)
An appellant may abandon an argument by failing “to articulate
any pertinent or intelligible legal argument.” (Berger v. Godden
(1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119; United Grand Corp. v. Malibu
Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146 [“ ‘In order to
demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court
with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and
citation to the record.’ ”].) These rules apply even if our standard
of review is de novo. (See Arnold v. Dignity Health, supra,
53 Cal.App.5th at p. 423.)

                                    7
A.    Alfaro Demonstrates No Error in The Trial Court’s
      Grant of Summary Judgment

      1.    A trial court has discretion to grant summary
            judgment when the party opposing summary
            judgment files no separate statement; Alfaro
            does not contend on appeal that the trial court
            erred in not exercising that discretion
         A party opposing summary judgment is required to provide
“. . . a separate statement that responds to each of the material
facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating
if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are
undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and
concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends
are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party
to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting
evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate
statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the court’s
discretion, for granting the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473c,
subd. (b)(3).)
         Alfaro provided no opposing separate statement in the trial
court and does not argue on appeal that the trial court abused its
discretion in granting summary judgment based on the absence
of such a separate statement. (See Jones v. Department of
Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1376
[trial court has discretion to grant summary judgment where
party opposing summary judgment files no separate statement].)
Alfaro has thus failed to demonstrate the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment on this independent ground.

                                    8
      2.    As a matter of law, Alfaro cannot show an
            essential element of her causes of action
       A motion for summary judgment should be granted if the
submitted papers show that “there is no triable issue as to any
material fact,” and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A
defendant meets his burden of showing that a cause of action has
no merit if he shows that one or more of the elements of the cause
of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete
defense. (Id., subd. (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
25 Cal.4th 826, 849.) Once the defendant has met that burden,
the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of
material fact exists. (Aguilar, at p. 849.)
       At the summary judgment stage, it is proper to rely on facts
deemed admitted. (Barnett v. American-Cal Medical Services
(1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 260, 266; see also Lattimore v. Dickey
(2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 959, 971 [trial court properly granted a
motion for summary judgment based on deemed admissions].)
The admission that Alfaro did not sustain any injuries from the
chicken she ate at SCO’s restaurant negates her allegation that
she was harmed when she ate that alleged undercooked chicken.
She also admitted she did not suffer damages. Alfaro’s causes of
action required showing injury and/or damages.3 On appeal,

      3  The negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
and tort causes of action require an injury and/or damages. The
elements of negligence include damages. (County of Santa Clara
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)
Damages is also an element of negligent infliction of emotional
distress. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072.)
Alfaro did not specify the intentional tort in her complaint. An
intentional tort requires injury. (Restat.2d Torts, § 870, com. (e).)

                                     9
Alfaro has failed to identify any cause of action alleged in the
complaint that remain viable given her admissions.
       We recognize that in the supplement submitted after the
court ruled on the motion for summary judgment, Alfaro
identified purported injuries stemming from SCO’s alleged
undercooked chicken. Nothing in the record, however, shows that
Alfaro made any effort to withdraw or amend the facts deemed
admitted and therefore the deemed admissions are established
facts for purposes of deciding a summary judgment motion.
(Lattimore v. Dickey, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 971.) Because
SCO showed Alfaro cannot demonstrate an essential element of
her causes of action, the trial court did not err in granting
summary judgment.
       Finally, Alfaro identifies 17 other claims of error with
respect to the entry of summary judgment, none of which is
supported by legal analysis or an explanation of the relevance of
the cited legal principle. By failing to provide pertinent and
cogent legal argument, Alfaro has abandoned these 17 claims of
error. (Berger v. Godden, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1120.) By
way of example, Alfaro states the “trial court erred by requiring
that Appellant marshal facts in opposition to the motion which
refutes claims unrelated to the issues of the moving papers.”
There is no record support for this statement. Even if arguendo
the trial court required the marshalling of certain facts, that
would not demonstrate that the court erred in granting summary
judgment.

“[I]njury denotes ‘the invasion of any legally protected interests of
another.’ ” (Ibid.)

                                    10
B.    Alfaro Forfeited Her Remaining Arguments By
      Failing To Provide any Legal Analysis

      1.    Alfaro demonstrates no error in the trial court’s
            denial of her request to continue the summary
            judgment hearing
       The trial court denied Alfaro’s ex parte motion requesting a
continuance of the summary judgment hearing. On appeal,
Alfaro’s entire argument that the trial court erred in doing so is
the following statement: “The trial court erred in denying the
Appellant’s ex parte application for a continuance regarding the
hearing on the summary judgment motion.” Alfaro offers no legal
argument to support this statement. By failing to provide cogent
legal argument, Alfaro has forfeited her claim of error. (United
Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at
p. 146.)

      2.    Alfaro’s contention the trial court failed to
            consider her objections is also not supported
            with cogent legal argument
      Appellant tersely contends: “The trial court erred in
denying and foreclosing Appellant’s attorney from making any
objections to the proceedings and hearing.” There is no legal
analysis to support this statement. Alfaro has thus forfeited any
argument based on it. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies,
LLC, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)

      3.    Alfaro’s claim of judicial bias is similarly
            unsupported with legal analysis
       Appellant’s entire argument that the trial court was biased
is the following conclusory statement: “The trial court openly

                                   11
expressed a bias and negative opinion of the Appellant that
resulted [in] the denial of the Appellant’s right to a fair and
impartial tribunal.” Alfaro has forfeited this argument by failing
to provide any legal analysis to support her contention. (United
Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at
p. 146.)

      4.     Alfaro demonstrates no error regarding denial
             of her motion to strike or reduce costs
       After the trial court entered judgment, Alfaro filed a motion
to strike or reduce costs. The record on appeal does not include
the trial court’s order concerning that motion. On appeal, she
states, “The trial court erred in denying Appellant’s Motion for an
Order Striking and or Reducing Costs (Taxing Costs).” Alfaro
offers no legal analysis. Accordingly, she has forfeited this claim
of error. (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra,
36 Cal.App.5th at p. 146.)

                         DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed. SCO, LLC is awarded its costs
on appeal.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                           BENDIX, Acting P. J.

We concur:

      CHANEY, J.                           WEINGART, J.

                                   12