Court Opinion

ID: 9690310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:04:15.259784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:41.814586
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/24/23 Marriage of Mohamed and Ezzat 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 In re the Marriage of                                             B321700
 MAHA MOHAMED and TAREK E.
 EZZAT.                                                            (Los Angeles County
 __________________________________                                Super. Ct. No. KD088302)

 MAHA MOHAMED,

                     Appellant,

           v.

 TAREK E. EZZAT,

                     Respondent.

     APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Joshua D. Wayser, Judge. Dismissed.
     Maha Mohamed, in pro. per., for Appellant.
     Law Office of Brian C. Unitt and Brian C. Unitt for
Respondent.
       Appellant Maha Mohamed appeals from a judgment
on reserved issues following the dissolution of her marriage
to respondent Tarek E. Ezzat.1 Specifically, she challenges
the portions of the judgment denying her spousal support and
concluding she had no community property interest in a business
and certain real property. Although it is not entirely clear from
her briefing, Mohamed appears to argue that the trial court
should not have considered her ability to work in assessing her
entitlement to spousal support, that certain evidence considered
by the court was forged, that certain testimony presented to
the court was false, and that the court did not permit her to
offer other evidence and testimony that would have proven these
deficiencies.
       Mohamed’s opening brief does not cite any legal authority
or make any citations to specific pages of the factual record.
Because “the trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct,”
“the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting
legal authority on each point made and factual analysis,
supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in
the record; otherwise, the argument may be deemed forfeited.”
(Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655.) A reviewing
court “ ‘ “is not required to make an independent, unassisted
study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the
judgment.” ’ ” (Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree
Asset Management, LP (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 368, 384.)
       But Mohamed has not provided a record sufficient for us
to undergo such an unassisted search, even assuming we were

     1 We conclude this appeal is suitable for resolution by
memorandum opinion pursuant to standard 8.1 of the California
Standards of Judicial Administration.

                                2
willing to do so. An appellant’s “ ‘[f]ailure to provide an adequate
record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against
[the appellant].’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.)
Mohamed has not provided a reporter’s transcript or other record
of the proceedings below, such as a settled statement. The record
she has provided is comprised entirely of: (1) a clerk’s transcript
containing a register of actions, the challenged judgment and
notice of entry thereof, a notice of appeal and designation of
record on appeal; and (2) several collections of documents
Mohamed identifies as “notice[s] of lodging [of] trial exhibits”
that contain what appear to be deposition transcripts, various
other documents, and written commentary on these documents.
(Capitalization omitted.) None of these documents bear exhibit
tags. We cannot evaluate Mohamed’s contentions regarding
evidentiary errors during trial, as we have no record of the
evidentiary rulings she contends were erroneous. Nor can we
assess the court’s spousal support analysis under Family Code
section 4320, as we do not have a complete record indicating
what evidence the court had before it in conducting this analysis.
Where, as here, “the appellant fails to provide the reviewing
court with a record enabling it to review and correct alleged
errors, the appeal will be dismissed.” (See, e.g., Ehman v. Moore
(1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 463.) Indeed, even if the portions of
the record Mohamed has provided supported her arguments—
and we do not determine whether this is the case—her failure to
provide a complete record of the proceedings in some form, as well
as a complete record of the evidence presented during trial, would
still warrant dismissal, because both of these missing portions
of the record “may provide grounds upon which the decision of
the trial court could be affirmed.” (See Uniroyal Chemical Co. v.

                                 3
American Vanguard Corp. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 285, 302;
see ibid. [“a record is inadequate, and appellant defaults, if the
appellant predicates error only on the part of the record he [or
she] provides the trial court, but ignores or does not present to
the appellate court portions of the proceedings below which may
provide grounds upon which the decision of the trial court could
be affirmed”].)
       In sum, even if we were willing to overlook the deficiencies
in Mohamed’s briefing and undertake an unassisted assessment
of the record to analyze Mohamed’s arguments, we could not
do so because she has failed to provide an adequate record.
Mohamed’s arguments as to why she did not provide an adequate
record do not change this inability, and thus cannot provide a
basis on which we hear her appeal. (See In re Steven B. (1979)
25 Cal.3d 1, 7 [“[i]t is clear that ‘[o]n appeal there must be an
adequate record to enable the court to pass upon the questions
sought to be raised’ ”].) We recognize that Mohamed is not an
attorney, and do not question whether she has made a good faith
effort to present a grievance to this court. Nevertheless, absent
a sufficient record, we have no way of meaningfully and fairly
assessing her arguments.

                                 4
                        DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their
own costs on appeal.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                   ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:

                 BENDIX, J.

                 WEINGART, J.

                               5