Court Opinion

ID: 9928021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 18:03:38.720334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:48.552785
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/30/24 Marriage of Schuck and Emert CA4/1

                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of ANDREA L.
SCHUCK and ROBERT EMERT.
                                                                D079955
ANDREA L. SCHUCK,

         Respondent,                                            (Super. Ct. No. 19FL010852N

         v.

ROBERT EMERT,

         Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Patti Ratekin, Commissioner and Lorna Alknse, Judge. Affirmed.
         Robert Emert, in pro. per., for Appellant.
         Law Office of Linda Cianciolo and Linda Cianciolo for Respondent.
         Self-represented litigant Robert Emert (Robert) appeals a family court
judgment entered against him by a family court commissioner, Patti Ratekin,
arguing it is “void” or “required to be set aside and or vacated due to
[Commissioner Ratekin’s] egregious violations of state and federal laws/rules
that govern our courts basic due process, basic service, and ethical conduct”
and also because “she entered the judgments [sic] after she recused . . . .”1
Robert also appeals from rulings by Judge Lorna Alknse, who he claims,
“kept me, my evidence, my witnesses and my [American Disability Act]
coordinators out of my own trial even though I simply requested a
continuance and or remote hearings due to a heart attack.” Finally, he
claims, with no citation to the record, that Judge Alana Robinson refused to
hear his challenge to Commissioner Ratekin’s rulings.
      Respondent Andrea L. Schuck (formerly Emert (Andrea)) points out
Robert has failed to cite to the record and provide cogent arguments or sound
legal analysis and therefore has not presented sufficient grounds for reversal.
We agree and affirm.
                                  DISCUSSION
      “Every brief must support any reference to a matter in the record by a
citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter
appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) . . . If a party fails to
support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, the
argument will be deemed waived.” (LA Investments, LLC v. Spix (2022) 75
Cal.App.5th 1044, 1061; accord, In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)
      Further, it is an appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record
establishing error. (Parker v. Harbert (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1178.)

1      As respondent points out, one of Robert’s notices of appeal states the
appeal is from Commissioner Ratekin’s October 15, 2021 order, but that is
the date the commissioner filed her June 24, 2021 order. We construe the
appeal as taken from the June 24, 2021 order. We liberally construe notices
of appeal “ ‘so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what
[the] appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could
not possibly have been misled or prejudiced.’ ” (In re Joshua S. (2007) 41
Cal.4th 261, 272; accord, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2).) Robert’s
second notice of appeal states it is from Judge Alksne’s November 18, 2021
order.
                                         2
Generally, an appellant must include in the record either a reporter’s
transcript or a settled statement. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc.
(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187; Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th
969, 977 [“Without a complete record, we are unable to determine whether
substantial evidence supported the implied findings underlying the trial
court’s order”].) “ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires
that the issue be resolved against [appellant].’ ” (Foust, at p. 187.) These
rules of appellate procedure apply regardless of whether an appellant is
represented by counsel or is self-represented. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.)
      Any ambiguity in the record is resolved in favor of the judgment.
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608).) On appeal, this court starts
with a presumption that the judgment or order being appealed is correct; the
burden is on the appellant to affirmatively show error. (Denham v. Superior
Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘All intendments and presumptions are
indulged to support [the judgment or order] on matters as to which the record
is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown’ ”].)
      As an appellant, Robert is further obligated to demonstrate how the
rulings he challenges prejudiced him. (See Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004)
33 Cal.4th 780, 800-802; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th
68, 105-106 [“[O]ur duty to examine the entire cause arises when and only
when the appellant has fulfilled his duty to tender a proper prejudice
argument. Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case,
rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in
his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice”]; Vaughn v.
Jonas (1948) 31 Cal.2d 586, 601 [“[t]o presume in favor of error or prejudice
would be directly contrary to the policy of this state”].)

                                         3
      Based on the above principles and Robert’s deficient briefing, we are
unable to conduct a meaningful review of his assertions of error and must
resolve this appeal in favor of the judgment. Robert has forfeited his claims
because he has not set forth the portion of the courts’ rulings he disagrees
with or made cogent arguments assigning error based on the applicable law.
The presentation of an appeal is not merely a rehash of arguments
unsuccessful at trial, but instead is a careful assertion of legal error and
resulting prejudice. (Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.)
      At the outset of his opening brief, Robert acknowledges his brief lacked
proper citation to legal authority: “In the interest of clarity and readability,
this brief focuses on the application of key authorities, those that are most
essential to the arguments presented in this case. Although the tenor of the
entire brief reflects the principles set out by a broad range of authorities as
referenced below, the document does not explicitly cite every authority on
every page. The table of authorities that accompanies this brief provides a
comprehensive list of all the cases, statutes, and other sources that
significantly influenced the positions taken in this brief. [¶] The lack of page
numbers provided in the table of authorities that are supposed to correspond
to those sections where the authorities are explicitly invoked and discussed is
not necessary as all the table of authorities are paramount in describing this
scenario. It should be understood that the principles drawn from these
authorities permeate the entirety of the arguments, even if not expressly
cited on every page. [¶] This approach ensures that the brief remains cogent,
while still acknowledging the breadth of authority underpinning the
argument.” (Some capitalization omitted.) “By failing to provide an adequate
record, [Robert] cannot meet his burden to show error and we must resolve

                                        4
any challenge . . . against him.” (Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center,
Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.)
      We also decline to address Robert’s arguments raised for the first time

in the reply brief, including his request for judicial notice.2 “For obvious
reasons of fairness, points raised for the first time in a reply brief will
ordinarily not be considered.” (Rubinstein v. Fakheri (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th
797, 809.) This includes his request for an evidentiary hearing. “Although
appellate courts are authorized to make findings of fact on appeal . . . the
authority should be exercised sparingly. [Citation.] Absent exceptional
circumstances, no such findings should be made.” (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31
Cal.4th 396, 405.)

2     After filing his reply brief, Robert filed in this court a motion
requesting we take judicial notice of unspecified “undisputed factual matters
in the record of this case.” He also requested an evidentiary hearing “in order
to present additional evidence related to the timeline and events stated
below, which establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it
recorded the November 29, 2021 default judgment on [January 24, 2022] due
to the automatic stays triggered by [his] previously filed appeals[.]” We
denied the request for judicial notice by separate order.

                                         5
                             DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.

                                           O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

                 IRION, J.

                  DATO, J.

                                  6