Court Opinion

ID: 9900944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 20:02:38.191421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:22.922467
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/20/23 Valentine v. Colon CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

JIMMY VALENTINE et al.,                                         B317910

         Plaintiffs and Respondents,                            (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. 19STCV20910)
         v.

ERMA COLON et al.,

         Defendants and Appellants.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.

         Felicia J. Riley, in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants.

      Green and Stewart, Noah Green and Charise L. Stewart,
for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

                                 _______________________
      Jimmy Valentine and Walter Dees (Plaintiffs) sued Erma
Colon and her daughter Felicia Riley (Defendants) in connection
with a failed business arrangement to renovate and sell Colon’s
home. Plaintiffs prevailed after a bench trial and Defendants
appeal. We affirm the judgment.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       As the record on appeal does not include the complaint,
trial exhibits, or a reporter’s transcript, we rely on the court’s
statement of decision for background information. According to
the statement of decision, Colon owned a residential property
that fell into disrepair and was condemned. Valentine was a real
estate investor who purchased distressed properties,
rehabilitated them, and sold them. The parties entered into an
agreement to rehabilitate and sell Colon’s property, the terms of
which gave Valentine an equitable interest in the property for
purposes of renovating and selling it. Valentine spent more than
$90,000 to rehabilitate the property, reinstate utilities and
insurance, pay unpaid taxes, stop a foreclosure, and list the
property for sale. Once the property was listed for sale,
Defendants rescinded the agreement and resumed living at the
property. Plaintiffs sued, asserting claims for breach of contract,
interference with contractual relations, and unjust enrichment.
       A court trial took place on April 15 and 16, 2021.1 On July
27, 2021, the court issued a statement of decision finding
Defendants had breached the contract and were unjustly
enriched. The court declined to make a restitution award for the

1     On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the minute
orders for April 15 and 16, 2021, which Defendants attached to
their opening brief. (Evid. Code, §§ 451, 452, 459.)

                                 2
unjust enrichment or to impose a constructive trust, instead
indicating its intent to enforce the terms of the parties’
agreement.
      The court ordered Plaintiffs to submit a proposed
judgment. Plaintiffs did so, to which Defendants filed objections
on August 9, 2021.
      Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion seeking clarification of
the court’s statement of decision concerning remedies. On
August 24, 2021, the court denied the motion and directed
Plaintiffs to proceed by noticed motion, which they filed the same
day. Although the record is not fully clear, it appears the court
continued the hearing on this motion and then denied it.
      On November 24, 2021, the court entered judgment for
Plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.

                          DISCUSSION

I.    Assertions in Factual Background of Brief
      In their opening brief, Defendants’ factual background
consists of Riley’s first person account of the history of the
parties’ relationship, their agreements, and the litigation. This
account does not constitute a “summary of the significant facts
limited to matters in the record” as required by California Rules
of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C). We cannot determine whether
Defendants’ factual representations are supported by evidence in
the record because the vast majority contain no citation to the
appellate record, in violation of California Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(C) [any reference in an appellate brief to matter in the
record must be supported by a citation to the volume and page
number of the record where that matter may be found]). In other
instances, Defendants relate information obviously outside the

                                 3
record on appeal, such as interactions with court clerks,
discussion of other litigation, and conversations with family
members and their former attorney. We are unable to rely on
these unsupported assertions in rendering our decision.
“Statements of fact that are not supported by references to the
record are disregarded by the reviewing court.” (McOwen v.
Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937, 947.)
       When citations are provided to support the assertions made
in the factual background, many direct the court to a series of
exhibits appended to Defendants’ opening brief. Two of these
appended exhibits are minute orders from the trial, two post-date
the trial, and we cannot determine whether the others were part
of the trial court proceedings. These documents do not appear in
the clerk’s transcript and have not been presented in compliance
with California Rules of Court, rules 8.120(a) (record on appeal)
and 8.204(d) (other than statutes and regulations, attachments to
briefs must be matters in the appellate record). We are confined
in our review to the evidence from the proceedings which took
place in the trial court. “Appellate review is generally limited to
matters contained in the record. Factual matters that are not
part of the appellate record will not be considered on appeal and
such matters should not be referred to in the briefs.” (Lona v.
Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 102.)
       Rather than a summary of the material evidence from trial,
Defendants’ recitation of the factual background presents
advocacy and factual disputes for apparent resolution by this
court. While we understand Defendants’ dissatisfaction with the
outcome of the litigation and their desire to set forth their view of
events, the statement of facts is not the place to present
argument. We cannot consider the wide-ranging factual disputes

                                 4
set forth in this portion of the brief. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules
8.204(a)(2)(C), 8.204(a)(1)(B); Provost v. Regents of University of
California (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294 [“we do not
consider all of the loose and disparate arguments that are not
clearly set out in a heading and supported by reasoned legal
argument”].)

II.   Clerk’s Transcript Certification
      Defendants’ first separately presented argument is that
Plaintiff Valentine filed a “ ‘Clerk’s Certification of Record on
Appeal’ on May 3, 2022, where he certifies that the ‘Clerk[’]s
Transcript’ contains ‘True’ and ‘Correct’ copies of the Original
Documents on file in this action.” Defendants complain this
document was filed before they filed their opening brief and
assert that many of the statements made in the clerk’s transcript
are not accurate or true.
      The document to which Defendants refer was not filed by
Valentine. It is a certification made by the superior court clerk
that the documents included in the clerk’s transcript are true and
correct copies of the documents in the superior court file for this
lawsuit. The superior court clerk is required by California Rules
of Court, rule 8.122(d)(1)(A) to prepare and certify the clerk’s
transcript. With this certification the clerk makes no
representations about the accuracy or veracity of statements in
the documents contained in the transcript.
      Although Defendants call the clerk’s transcript “the
Plaintiffs[’] transcript,” it actually was prepared by the superior
court at Defendants’ request. Defendants filed a Notice
Designating Record on Appeal form requesting the preparation of
a clerk’s transcript and specifying the items to be included in that
transcript. This designation of the record form was filed by

                                  5
Defendants on January 19, 2022, and is contained in the clerk’s
transcript.
      Defendants have not established error.

III.   Factual Contentions
       Defendants’ next argument begins by directing this court to
various pages of their written closing argument in the trial court.
It is not appropriate to incorporate by reference arguments
contained in trial court papers into an appellate brief, even if
those papers are made a part of the appellate record; and we do
not consider them. (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 294, fn. 20 (Soukup).)
       Defendants then set forth a paragraph of factual
assertions, none of which are supported by citations to evidence
in the clerk’s transcript. Defendants do not present a legal
argument demonstrating how these assertions establish error in
the judgment. “Every argument presented by an appellant must
be supported by both coherent argument and pertinent legal
authority. [Citation.] If either is not provided, the appellate
court may treat the issue as waived.” (Kaufman v. Goldman
(2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 734, 743.) We suspect Defendants may
intend to argue some of the trial court’s findings were not
supported by substantial evidence, but a “party presenting an
argument of insufficient evidence may not simply reargue its
version of the facts.” (Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC. (2019) 36
Cal.App.5th 375, 391.) “ ‘A party who challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to support a particular finding must summarize
the evidence on that point, favorable and unfavorable, and show
how and why it is insufficient. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Where a
party presents only facts and inferences favorable to his or her
position, ‘the contention that the findings are not supported by

                                 6
substantial evidence may be deemed waived.’ ” (Schmidlin v.
City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738.)

IV.   Conduct of the Trial
      Defendants allege at various points in their opening brief
that the trial was conducted in their absence. It appears they
believe the court, on April 15, 2021, rescheduled the trial to the
following day, but then reversed course and held the trial on
April 15 although Defendants were unaware of the proceedings;
heard Valentine’s testimony and rendered judgment in his favor
on April 15; and then, the following day, April 16, 2021,
conducted depositions of Riley and Riley’s daughter.
      The record on appeal does not support these claims. The
minute order of April 15, 2021, indicates the trial began on April
15, 2021, and Defendants were represented by their counsel.
Defendants are correct that Valentine did testify that day, but
there is no indication that the court awarded judgment to
Plaintiffs on April 15, 2021. To the contrary, the April 15, 2021
minute order states that the parties and counsel were ordered to
return the following day, and the April 16, 2021 minute order
states that trial resumed that day from April 15, 2021. As for
Defendants’ contention that Riley and her daughter were deposed
rather than giving trial testimony, the minute order of April 16,
2021, directly refutes that assertion.

V.     Notice
       Defendants complain they did not personally receive
various documents at the time they were filed, and they contend
they should have been personally notified of hearings occurring
after trial. Because Defendants were represented by counsel,
Plaintiffs were required to serve documents and notices on their

                                7
attorney, not on them personally. “[I]n all cases where a party
has an attorney in the action or proceeding, the service of papers,
when required, must be upon the attorney instead of the party,
except service of subpoenas, of writs, and other process issued in
the suit, and of papers to bring the party into contempt.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 1015.)

VI.    Previous Lawsuit
       In their opening brief, Defendants repeatedly refer to a
prior lawsuit between the parties that was dismissed. They ask
us to reverse the judgment and dismiss this lawsuit because it is
the “same lawsuit” as the earlier action, but they do not present a
legally cognizable basis for reversal. Defendants do not discuss
the elements of res judicata or demonstrate how they were
proven here (see Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of
Water Resources (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170, 206), and the record
on appeal lacks sufficient information to make such a
determination. “To demonstrate error, appellant must present
meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and
citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.
[Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and
authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without
foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’
[Citations.] Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re
S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
       Finally, Defendants allege the trial court should have had a
“discussion” with the judge who presided over the first action
before deciding the second case. Defendants do not articulate the
nature of this discussion, what they believe it would have
achieved, or why the failure to consult another judge requires
reversal of the judgment. The failure to present a legal argument

                                 8
is fatal to this claim. “Issues not supported by argument or
citation to authority are forfeited.” (Needelman v. DeWolf Realty
Co., Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 750, 762.) Moreover, to the
extent Defendants intend to suggest the court should have
obtained additional information from another judge for use in
making its ruling, this would have been improper. “When a trial
judge sits as the trier of fact, the judge takes the place of a jury,
and his or her conduct is subject to the same rules. [Citation.]
Consequently, the judge cannot receive information from sources
outside the evidence in the case.” (Guadalupe A. v. Superior
Court (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 100, 108–109.)

VII. Other Contentions
       Section II of Defendants’ Argument in the opening brief,
entitled, “Application Of The Law To The Facts,” consists solely
of a citation to Defendants’ closing argument in the trial court.
We do not consider arguments incorporated by reference from
trial court papers. (Soukup, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 294, fn. 20)
       Section III of Defendants’ Argument is a verbatim
reproduction of three California Rules of Court. An appellant
must offer argument as to how the court erred, rather than citing
general principles of law without applying them to the
circumstances before the court. (Landry v. Berryessa Union
School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699.)
       Defendants assert the trial court did not “acknowledge”
their closing argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel “included documents
‘not directly related’ to the Plaintiffs or their court case,” and they
(Defendants) objected to the proposed judgment. These
contentions are not supported by argument and legal authority
demonstrating error in the judgment. “We need not address
points in appellate briefs that are unsupported by adequate

                                  9
factual or legal analysis.” (Placer County Local Agency
Formation Com. v. Nevada County Local Agency Formation Com.
(2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 793, 814.)

                         DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their
costs on appeal.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             WILEY, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                              10