Court Opinion

ID: 9901426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 19:02:18.918767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:32.580740
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/21/23 A.R. v. Chris R. 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                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 A.R.,                                                                        D080340

            Plaintiff and Respondent,

            v.                                                                (Super. Ct. No. 21FDV03545E)

 CHRIS R.,

            Defendant and Appellant.

          APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed.
          Chris R., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
          A.R., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                           MEMORANDUM OPINION1
          Chris R. appeals from the trial court’s January 3, 2022 order denying
his cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order against his then
17-year-old daughter A.R. (See Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) Chris and his

1    We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
former wife of nearly ten years, Victoria R., have two children, A.R. and C.R.;
they divorced in 2013. There are four appeals currently pending in this court
involving Chris, Victoria, A.R., and Chris’s longtime girlfriend Naomi Yael

Bar-Lev.2
      This case began when A.R. sought a domestic violence restraining order

against Chris stemming from an incident that occurred on July 10, 2021.3
Chris in response sought his own domestic violence restraining order against
A.R. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied both requests,
finding there was no evidence either party was then in need of protection.
The court found that A.R. and Chris no longer lived together; since the July
2021 incident, neither of them had sought the other out or attempted to be
near one another; and the incident was “over, and . . . done.” The court made
its ruling without prejudice.
      Chris is appearing in propria persona, as he did in the trial court.
Although self-represented, we may not excuse Chris from following the rules

2       See D080144 (A.R. v. Bar-Lev, case No. 37-2021-00030596-CU-HR-EC
[civil restraining order issued for A.R. against Bar-Lev]); D080206 (Victoria
R. v. Bar-Lev, case No. 37-2021-00031657-CU-HR-EC [civil restraining issued
for Victoria against Bar-Lev]); and D080337 (Chris R. v. Victoria R., case No.
D540635 [Chris’s appeal from denial of his petition for a domestic violence
restraining order against Victoria]).

3      In her respondent’s brief, A.R. asks us to reverse a portion of the trial
court’s January 3, 2022 order denying her request for a restraining order
against Chris. However, A.R. did not appeal from that order, and the matter
therefore is not properly before us. (See Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016)
3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665 [respondent who failed to file his own appeal seeking
affirmative relief forfeits appellate challenge to trial court’s ruling]);
Transworld Systems, Inc. v. County of Sonoma (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 713,
716, fn. 4 [defendant county waived its right to contest an adverse finding of
the trial court by failing to file a cross-appeal].)
                                       2
of appellate procedure. (See Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31
[“ ‘as is the case with attorneys, [self-represented] litigants must follow
correct rules of procedure’ ”]; accord Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th
1229, 1247 (Nwosu) [a self-represented party “ ‘is to be treated like any other
party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other
litigants and attorneys’ ”].)
      A trial court’s judgment or order is presumed correct and it is the
appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error on appeal. (Denham v.
Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘All intendments and presumptions
are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and
error must be affirmatively shown.’ ”]; accord Jameson v. Desta (2018)
5 Cal.5th 594, 608−609 (Jameson).) To make this showing, the appellant
must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to facts in the
record and, if possible, authority to support the claim of error. (Multani v.

Witkin & Neal (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1457; see Cal. Rules of Court,4
rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must “[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”]; id., (a)(1)(B) [briefs must state each “point under a separate
heading or subheading . . . and support each point by argument and, if
possible, by citation of authority”].)
      In addition, the appellant’s factual summary must be limited to
“significant facts . . . in the record” (rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); CIT
Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th
537, 539, fn. 1 [“it is well established that a reviewing court may not give any
consideration to alleged facts that are outside of the record on appeal”]) and

4     All further “rule” references are to the Rules of Court.
                                          3
must include “ ‘ “all the material evidence on the point and not merely [his or
her] own evidence” ’ ” (Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246).
      The appellant also must present an “adequate record” for review.
(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574−575 (Ballard).) Rule 8.122(b)
sets out the required contents of a clerk’s transcript. Among others, it “must”
include “[a]ny . . . document filed . . . in the case in superior court” pertaining
to the issues on appeal (rule 8.122(b)(3)(A)); and “[a]ny exhibit admitted in
evidence, refused, or lodged” (id., (b)(3)(B)).
      Here, Chris has failed to follow these basic rules of appellate procedure.
His statement of facts contains legal argument, includes factual assertions
without citation to the record, and is decidedly one-sided. He also relies on
asserted facts outside the record to support his arguments, including facts
after the trial court made its ruling (i.e., his questioning the “validity” of one
of the court reporters who prepared part of the clerk’s transcript). We are not
permitted to consider evidence arising after the trial court’s decision “because
an appeal reviews the correctness of a judgment [or order] as of the time of its
rendition, upon a record of matters which were before the trial court for its
consideration.” (In re James V. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 300, 304.) And, while
Chris cites two cases in his argument, he fails to explain how those cases
support his position and demonstrate legal error by the court.
      Chris’s arguments also show a misunderstanding of our role as an
appellate court. A reviewing court does “ ‘not reweigh evidence or reassess
the credibility of witnesses,’ ” as it is “ ‘ “not a second trier of fact.” ’ ”
(Reynaud v. Technicolor Creative Services USA, Inc. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th
1007, 1015; accord Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 364.)
      Most consequential is Chris’s failure to provide us with a proper record.
(Ballard, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 574−575.) The record does not contain

                                            4
Chris’s cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order, which is the
subject of this appeal; nor does it contain the exhibits admitted at the
January 3, 2022 evidentiary hearing, as shown by the court minutes, or the
domestic violence restraining order A.R. filed on July 19, 2021. (See rule
8.122(b)(3)(A), (B).) Without a proper record of the relevant proceedings, we
cannot determine what, if any, evidence was presented to the trial court
resulting in the challenged order. Consequently, we must presume the
evidence supports the court’s findings and its resulting order was proper
based on those findings. (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609; accord Christie
v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412 [“To the extent the court relied
on documents not before us, our review is hampered. We cannot presume
error from an incomplete record.”]; Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game
Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043, 1051, fn. 9 [“if the record is inadequate for
meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court
should be affirmed”].)
                                DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s January 3, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                                              DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

                                       5