Court Opinion

ID: 9952780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 19:03:19.794761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:39.869408
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/20/24 Schwartz v. Noya CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

SCOTT SCHWARTZ,                                                2d Civil No. B329331
                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 56-2019-
     Plaintiff and Appellant,                                00535641-CU-PO-VTA)
                                                                 (Ventura County)
v.

DAVID NOYA,

     Defendant and Respondent.

     We have the inherent power to dismiss an appeal where it is
“based upon wholly sham or frivolous grounds.” (Ferguson v.
Keays (1971) 4 Cal.3d 649, 658.) This is a fair description of this
purported appeal. In our discretion, we elect not to dismiss the
appeal. The rules on appeal are well known to counsel.1 We
recently restated these rules.

         1 Respondent does not move for dismissal of the appeal.
                                                               He
says that appellant’s contentions are waived by failure to comply
with the rules on appeal. Respondent is correct.
        “‘[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that
a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and
the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the
record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court
committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.
[Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘This means that an appellant must do
more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to
search the record and the law books to test his claim. The
appellant must present an adequate argument including citations
to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.
[Citations.]’ [Citation.] Accordingly, the California Rules of
Court expressly require appellate briefs to ‘[s]tate each point
. . . and support each point by argument and, if possible, by
citation of authority’ and to ‘[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.’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘It is not our
place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the
judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness.’ [Citation.]
Nor are we ‘required to search the record on [our] own seeking
error.’ [Citation.] Consequently, ‘[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
waived. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] Likewise, ‘“[i]f a party fails to
support an argument with the necessary citations to the record,
. . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been waived.
[Citation.]” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] These rules apply both to
parties represented by counsel and self-represented parties.
[Citation.] ‘A party proceeding in propria persona “is to be
treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no

                                 2
greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.”
[Citation.]’” (L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 619-620.)
      In his statement of the case, appellant says: “A complaint
was filed in December of 2019 against the [respondent] alleging
that, with willful disregard and reckless intent, did cause an
accident on the 405 freeway. Then sometime later assaulted the
[appellant] when he attempted to obtain the [respondent’s]
insurance information. Then due to the [trial] court’s
intervention, [appellant] was unable to present [his] case
evidence of what actually happened. Resulting in an unjust
verdict.”
      In his argument, appellant says: “I was brought to the
Ventura County Superior Court by AAA auto insurance in like
2006. AAA used a DMV database of ‘unclaimed accidents’ to
manufacture a case against me. With a car they had in impound.
The Ventura County Superior Court put on a ‘sham’ trial in a
back room down the end of the hall. Used a single question.
‘Statement of admissions document.’ Drawn up to look and act a
‘confession.’ To find me liable. This was a crime.” [¶] This case
involves the third time I have been wrongfully arrested in my life
because people lie. Police are inept, and courts are corruptible.
[¶] The grounds for appeal in this case is the record.”
                              Conclusion
      We have read and considered appellant’s opening brief
which violates all of the rules on appeal. It has three pages of
text. There are no citations to any legal authorities and only
three references to the record. Appellant’s brief tells us that he
sincerely believes that he did not prevail at his jury trial because
the defense witnesses perjured themselves and the trial court
committed misconduct. The jury, by special verdict, said that

                                 3
respondent did not threaten to touch appellant and determined
did not intend to harm or offend him. This translates to a factual
finding that the jury did not credit appellant’s testimony. His
brief is a conclusion. It does not support appellant’s prayer for
reversal and a new trial.
       The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover his
costs on appeal.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    YEGAN, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                                4
                   Mark S. Borrell, Judge

              Superior Court County of Ventura

               ______________________________

     Scott Schwartz, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
     Tharpe & Howell and Eric B. Kunkel, for Defendant and
Respondent.