Court Opinion

ID: 9880835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-28 20:03:46.591435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:57:51.744442
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/28/23 Woods v. Guzman 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

NIRA WOODS,                                                      B317221, B318393

       Plaintiff and Appellant,                                  Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No. 20TRCV00564
       v.

VICTOR GUZMAN et al.,

       Defendants and Respondents.

      APPEAL from a judgment and orders of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, John J. Kralik, Judge. Affirmed.

         Nira Woods, in pro. per., for Appellant.

     Jeanne-Marie K. Litvin, Deputy City Attorney, for
Defendants and Respondents City of Torrance and Jon Megeff.

     Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, Rick Peterson and
Daniel E. Webber for Defendants and Respondents N&K
Commercial Property, Inc., Ken Miyake, Victor Guzman, and
Manuel Guzman.
                                    _________________________
                        INTRODUCTION
       Dr. Nira Woods (appellant) filed three notices of appeal: the
first from the judgment entered November 15, 2021; the second
from the court’s order of December 13, 2021; and the third, from
the court’s order of January 28, 2022. Pursuant to our order of
March 8, 2022, these three appeals were consolidated for all
purposes under B317221.
       Appellant makes numerous arguments on appeal. We do
not address some of the arguments because the issues are not
properly before us. As to the remaining arguments, we deem
them forfeited or waived because appellant did not provide
sufficient legal authority and citation to the record on appeal to
support her contentions.
       We affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.    Civil Complaint
       Appellant initiated the underlying matter on August 11,
2020 by filing a civil complaint against 20 defendants—including
respondents N&K Commercial Property, Inc. (N&K), Ken
Miyake, Manuel Guzman, Victor Guzman, the City of Torrance’s
Department of Mental Health, the City of Torrance’s Police
Department and its deputy chief Jon Megeff.1 The complaint
alleged 14 causes of action, including invasion of privacy,
negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.

1     We note respondent City of Torrance was not named as a
defendant in the complaint. We do not recite information
pertaining to the other defendants, as they are not parties to the
appeal before us.

                                 2
       The complaint’s content is confusing and difficult to
discern. The complaint alleged: appellant has an
interdisciplinary Ph.D from Tel Aviv University in engineering,
physics, and mathematics. She is the lessee of private land
identified as unit 68 of the Skyline Mobile Park located in
Torrance, California. She signed a lease agreement with the
management of Skyline Mobile Park on April 1, 2003. In 2013,
defendants amended the Local Rules and Regulations, which
breached and violated her lease agreement.2 Defendants
authorized, created, and used the “digitally searchable Database
created by Hazardous Surveillance CCTV System” over the public
internet, and that CCTV system included lasers and infrared
antenna sources with energy beams that radiate her body. The
complaint goes on to allege other actions involving the Skyline
Mobile Park.
       On October 1, 2020, the City of Torrance (respondent City)
filed a demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer clarified that
the complaint “[e]rroneously sued and served [the] Torrance
Police Department [and] Department of Mental Health” and that
the proper defendant is respondent City. Respondent City
contended the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to state a
valid cause of action “as the [c]omplaint is unclear, ambiguous
and uncertain.” Respondent City also argued it is “statutorily
immune from liability” and appellant failed to allege compliance
with the claim presentation requirements.

2     For instance, appellant alleged N&K falsely replaced the
management “of” Skyline Mobile Park with management “for”
Skyline Mobile Park, constituting fraud in her lease agreement.

                                3
       On September 30, 2020, this matter was ordered
reassigned “[p]ursuant to a [r]ecusal” from Judge Gary Y. Tanaka
at the Torrance Courthouse to Judge William D. Stewart at the
Burbank Courthouse for all further proceedings.
       On October 2, 2020, appellant filed an objection to the
court’s order of reassignment, requesting that her case remain
with Judge Tanaka at the Torrance Courthouse “regardless of
issues, conflicts the [Judge] is concerned about” and because she
does not “have the physical capabilities to drive such long
distance” to the Burbank Courthouse; “it is only 6 miles round
trip from [her] mobile home park to [the] Torrance Courthouse.”
       On October 8, 2020, the court reviewed and granted a
peremptory challenge filed by appellant. A notice of case
reassignment was issued, providing that the case “previously
assigned to [Judge] William D. Stewart . . . shall be assigned to
[Judge] John J. Kralik . . . for all purposes . . . at [the] Burbank
Courthouse.”
       On October 9, 2020, respondents N&K, Ken Miyake, Victor
Guzman, and Manuel Guzman (collectively N&K respondents)
filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing the entire complaint
failed to state facts constituting a cause of action and the wording
was “uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible.”
       On December 4, 2020, the court issued an order denying
appellant’s September 25, 2020 motion to disqualify the City of
Torrance from representing defendants she had identified as
Torrance Police Department, the Department of Mental Health,
and Jon Megeff (Megeff). We were not provided a copy of
appellant’s motion and the opposition filed by respondent City.
The court’s order, however, concluded appellant failed to provide

                                 4
a legal basis in support of her motion and failed to state the legal
grounds upon which disqualification was warranted.
      On January 8, 2021, the court issued a lengthy order
sustaining demurrers filed by respondents on October 1 and 9,
2020. The court found the “allegations of the 54-page complaint
are difficult to decipher” and are “uncertain and vague.” The
court found the complaint was not pleaded with the requisite
particularity, failed to provide the statutory basis on which
appellant sought to establish liability, and failed to allege
whether appellant had timely presented her claim as a
prerequisite to filing her complaint against the City and Megeff.
Appellant was given 20 days leave to amend the complaint.
B.    First Amended Complaint
       On February 16, 2021, appellant filed a 65-page first
amended complaint (FAC), alleging eight causes of action. Again,
she did not name the City of Torrance as a defendant, but instead
named the City of Torrance’s Police Department and the
Department of Mental Health. The allegations in the FAC are
nearly identical to those of the original complaint.
       On March 22, 2021, N&K respondents filed a demurrer to
the FAC. They argued the entire FAC failed to state facts
constituting a cause of action and was “uncertain, ambiguous and
unintelligible.” That same day, the City and Megeff jointly filed a
demurrer to the FAC.
       On June 25, 2021, the court sustained both demurrers. The
court permitted appellant 30 days leave to amend the FAC and
cautioned her to “carefully consider whether she has additional
facts sufficient to amend the operative complaint and allege valid
causes of action.” The court reminded appellant that “a
complaint must contain a ‘statement of facts constituting the

                                 5
cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.’ [Appellant]
should attempt to comply with [Code of Civil Procedure] section
425.10(a) so that the amended complaint is written in ordinary
and concise language. [Appellant] is advised that if her next
complaint does not state a cause of action[,] she is unlikely to
receive leave to amend on future demurrers.”
C.    Second Amended Complaint
       On July 26, 2021, appellant filed a 26-page second
amended complaint (SAC) against 15 defendants including
respondents.3 She entitled the SAC as “The 2AC” and
“Amendments to the Operative Complaint” to include “additional
Facts” such as that defendants engaged in dumping large
amounts of debris of big cactuses near her mobile park residence
unit. She requested the court order demolition of the mobile
park’s hazardous surveillance system. She also requested relief
from the claim presentation requirement. She further requested
that she be assigned a public attorney and that her case be
reassigned back to the Torrance Court.
       On August 16, 2021, N&K respondents filed a demurrer to
the SAC. They once again argued the entire SAC failed to state
facts constituting a cause of action and was “uncertain,
ambiguous and unintelligible.”
       On August 20, 2021, respondent City and Megeff filed a
demurrer to the SAC for failure to state facts sufficient to state a
valid cause of action, failure to allege compliance with or excusal
from the claim presentation requirements, and statutory
immunity from suit.

3     Again, the City of Torrance was not a named defendant.

                                 6
       On September 20, 2021, the court sustained the demurrer
filed by respondent City and Megeff without leave to amend. On
September 23, 2021, judgment was entered dismissing “on the
merits, with prejudice, . . . in favor of” the City and Megeff.
       On October 15, 2021, the court sustained the demurrer of
N&K respondents. The court ruled it “has afforded [appellant]
multiple opportunities to amend the complaint and has raised
similar defects in the pleadings in prior rulings. The overall
import of [appellant’s] [c]omplaints is that someone associated
with her mobile home park is directing radiation at her and
impeding her ability to defend herself against this radiation.
Many of the persons that she has brought into this case have no
apparent duty to defend against such radiation. Her theories
appear improbable, but the truth of them must be accepted at
demurrer unless they are judicially noticed to be impossible.
While [appellant’s] theories approach that threshold, they do not
cross it. If a party that owes her a duty is directing radiation
against her, there could be a breach of duty. Despite numerous
attempts, [appellant] has failed to specifically identify the person
and the associated duty. The court will give her one last
opportunity to do so by giving leave to amend within 20 days.”
(Some capitalizations omitted.)
       On November 9, 2021, N&K respondents filed an ex parte
application for an order of dismissal and entry of judgment in
their favor, as appellant failed to timely file a third amended
complaint within the court-ordered time frame of 20 days. That
same date, appellant filed opposition to the ex parte application.

                                 7
      On November 15, 2021, the court granted the ex parte
application and entered judgment in favor of N&K respondents.
Appellant’s entire action was dismissed with prejudice as to N&K
respondents.
      On November 19, 2021, appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal from the court’s November 15, 2021 judgment in favor of
N&K respondents.
D.    Ex Parte Application to Vacate the Judgment Entered on
      November 15, 2021
       On November 29, 2021, appellant filed an ex parte
application to vacate the November 15, 2021 judgment. She
stated she was put on “two consecutive 5150 Hold[s] by Torrance
Police Officer(s) . . . till she will admit that there are NO laser
beams radiations impinged on [her].” She also “cannot travel
long distances; nor round trips over 50 mil[es]; that prevents
[her] from appearance in Burbank court in person . . . and [she]
cannot argue over the phone since [she] is not an attorney.” She
stated this was why she was unable to prepare the third
amended complaint.
       On December 10, 2021, N&K respondents filed opposition
to the ex parte application, arguing that appellant’s request
provided “no legal basis for the ex parte or the relief requested.”
They also referred to the fact that appellant had filed on
November 9, 2021 her opposition to N&K respondents’ ex parte
request and did not mention she was detained by the authorities
on a 5150 hold.

                                 8
      On December 13, 2021, following argument, the court
denied appellant’s ex parte application to vacate the November
15, 2021 judgment.
      On December 17, 2021, appellant filed a notice of appeal
from the court’s December 13, 2021 order.
E.    Appellant’s Ex Parte Application to Invalidate Her Lease
      Agreement and Preserve Her Rights
      On January 14, 2022, appellant filed an ex parte
application for an order “to preserve [her] Federal Constitution
and Due Process Rights,” to set aside or vacate the court’s July
27, 2021 order “as ruled without jurisdiction,” and to deem as
“invalid” her lease agreement because “a lease agreement cannot
be made with DBA named party, in which such is invalidate the
lease agreement; and when the landlord is not identified in the
agreement.”
      On January 28, 2022, the court denied appellant’s January
14, 2022 ex parte application.
      On February 1, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal from
the court’s January 28, 2022 order.

                                9
                         DISCUSSION4
      We are mindful appellant represents herself on appeal;
however, she “is to be treated like any other party and is entitled
to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and
attorneys.” (Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.
(1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210; see Rappleyea v. Campbell
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985.) She is thus bound to follow
fundamental rules of appellate review, including: “[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

4    Appellant has filed five requests for judicial notice. We
deny all five requests, as follows.

       Appellant’s March 2, 2022 request asks us to take judicial
notice of two letters she received from the California Department
of General Services. Appellant’s May 9, 2022 request asks us to
take judicial notice of an exhibit list of 80 exhibits she claims to
have filed during the proceedings below. Appellant’s May 12,
2022 request asks us to take judicial notice of multiple emails she
sent to the Skyline Mobile Park management and others.
Appellant’s May 16, 2022 request asks us to take judicial notice
of a letter dated May 12, 2022 from the Institute of Brain and
Spine Surgery that states appellant had surgery on April 26,
2022 at the Torrance Memorial Medical Center. Finally,
appellant’s June 29, 2022 request asks us to take judicial notice
of an email she sent to Judge Kralik.

      Appellant provides no legal or factual support for her
requests and we fail to see how the documents are relevant to the
issues before us on appeal.

                                10
an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v.
Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) “ ‘All intendments and
presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which
the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ”
(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).)
To overcome this presumption, an appellant must provide a
record that allows for meaningful review of the challenged order.
(Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th
181, 187 (Foust).)
      Our review of the merits of this appeal is severely
hampered by appellant’s noncompliance with rules of appellate
practice and procedure, as well as the California Rules of Court.
Appellant’s opening brief is confusing, difficult to follow, and at
times indecipherable. Appellant fails to present adequate legal
discussion and cogent argument which refers to relevant evidence
and the appellate record in general. Not once does she cite to the
8,000-page record before us. It is not our duty to scour the record
on our own in search of supporting evidence. (Sharabianlou v.
Karp (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1149.) Further, appellant
makes general contentions, including undeveloped assertions of
error. This results in forfeiture.
      To the extent we can, we address what appears to be
appellant’s main arguments on appeal.
      First, appellant argues exhibits 1–53 and the
administrative proceedings “are [k]ey and absolutely necessary to
the Legal validity and understanding of the [SAC].” (Italics
omitted.) She argues that “the Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles Civil Appeals Unit sent [her] a Surprise / a
Shock, two Exhibit(s) Letter . . . [w]hich gave a Judicial Notice of
the Superior Court of California proceedings that took place and

                                11
failed to process [her] Designated Exhibits on Appeal and
Designated Administrative proceedings on Appeal.” (Boldface
and italics omitted.) She then quotes a letter where the Civil
Appeals Unit notified her that there is “no record of these
exhibits in the court file or the exhibit room.” She claims this
is an “abuse of power, in false, in violation of the Federal
Constitution and Due Process Rights (1st; 2nd; 4th; 5th; 14th;
15th; 16th; Amendments Constitution).”
       We do not know to which administrative proceedings
appellant refers, as she does not identify such proceedings in her
brief nor does she cite to any part of the record that discusses
administrative proceedings which occurred before the underlying
court proceedings. Nevertheless, even if a record of
administrative proceedings were before us, it would be of no help
to her on appeal, as she has not made any argument with respect
to the court’s November 15, 2021 order granting N&K
respondents’ ex parte application to enter judgment in their
favor. She has similarly not made a single argument on appeal
as to the court’s underlying order sustaining the N&K
respondents’ demurrer to the SAC, nor has she presented us with
amendments she plans to include in any third amended
complaint that may cure the defects of the SAC. (See Dudek v.
Dudek (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 154, 163.) “Issues do not have a life
of their own: if they are not raised or supported by [substantive]
argument or citation to authority, we consider the issues waived.”
(Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99; see also
Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th
691, 699–700 [“When an issue is unsupported by pertinent or
cognizable legal argument, it may be deemed abandoned and
discussion by the reviewing court is unnecessary.”].)

                               12
      Appellant claims she has suffered constitutional violations
under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments
without citing legal authority to support her argument. (United
Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th
142, 165, fn. 6 (United Grand Corp).) [we may disregard
conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal
authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant
reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt].) A reviewing
court has no obligation to “develop appellants’ argument for
them.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th
814, 830; see also Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172,
179–181; see Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943,
948 [“We are not required to make an independent, unassisted
study of the record in search of error [in] a trial court’s action.”].)
She has forfeited this contention.
      Second, appellant claims the “Court of Appeal practice
Court Proceedings that violated . . . Code of Civil Procedure
sections 585(b), 585(c), 989, etc.; and in false, bias, unfair,
misconduct, and violated my Federal Constitution and Due
process rights; kept / preserved an open place for the DOJ A.G.
Rob Bonta to file Demurrer to the 2AC . . . and the Court of
Appeal placed the City of Torrance (a local Government) and its
Attorney Litvin, on the Court of Appeal docket, as a decoy to
preserve the Defaulted DOJ A.G. Rob Bonta rights to appeal.”
      We are uncertain what appellant is arguing here. To the
extent she claims the City of Torrance was not a proper
defendant in the trial court and not a proper respondent on
appeal, the City of Torrance clarified in its October 1, 2020
demurrer that appellant’s original complaint “[e]rroneously sued
and served [the] Torrance Police Department [and] Department

                                  13
of Mental Health” and that the proper defendant is respondent
City. Moreover, appellant raised this very issue in her
September 25, 2020 motion to disqualify the City from
representing the defendants she had identified as Torrance Police
Department, the Department of Mental Health, and Megeff. As
already noted, we were not provided a copy of appellant’s motion
and the opposition filed by respondent City. Error must be
affirmatively shown; all intendments and presumptions are
indulged to uphold the judgment on matters as to which the
record is silent. (Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564.) Her failure
to provide a record that allows for meaningful review results in
waiver and forfeiture of her claim. (Foust, supra,
198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187.)
       Third, she argues the “Trial Judge in bias, unfair,
misconduct dismissed Defendant 6 (The Management of Skyline
Park), and in bias, misconduct, alleged [she] was the one [who]
requested it.” The November 15, 2021 judgment of dismissal
from which appellant appeals pertains only to the N&K
respondents—namely, N&K Commercial Property, Inc., Ken
Miyake, Victor Guzman, and Manuel Guzman. It does not
pertain to the Skyline Park Management party to which
appellant refers. The other two orders appealed from—i.e., the
December 13, 2021 order denying appellant’s ex parte application
to vacate the November 15, 2021 judgment, and the January 28,
2022 order denying appellant’s ex parte application to invalidate
her lease agreement—similarly have nothing to do with dismissal
of the Skyline Park Management party. Appellant has failed to
cite to any page in the record to demonstrate otherwise. She has
not affirmatively shown error. This issue is not properly before
us.

                               14
       Fourth and finally, appellant argues “Judge Tanaka in
Torrance Courthouse . . . [r]eassigned [this matter] from Torrance
Courthouse to Burbank far away from [her] house, and from
Torrance city where [she] live[s], where the wrong done to [her]
took place, and where [her] old witnesses live.” She contends the
“entire Judges of the Torrance Courthouse . . . refuse [her] at
their courtrooms, and while [she] contributed to Torrance for
nearly 40 years.” She claims the “Judges (Kralik/Jessner) failed
to address [her claims and] deepened the Defamation of [her]
Character by publicly spread[ing] the Defamation of [her]
Character . . . vocally that the Judges in Torrance Courthouse DO
NOT want me in his courtroom; and the reason for the transfer to
Burbank Court house.”
       We do not know what appellant refers to as a “defamation
of character.” She has not coherently explained what she means
and has not referenced or cited to the 8,000-page record to assist
us in understanding her claim. To the extent she contests the
September 30, 2020 order reassigning her case to the Burbank
Courthouse following a recusal by Judge Gary Y. Tanaka at the
Torrance Courthouse, appellant has forfeited this argument
because she has not cited authority or adequately discussed her
contention. Appellant has not provided a statement of the facts
surrounding Judge Tanaka’s recusal from the case, nor has she
cited to the record to enable us to ascertain the underlying facts.
Appellant’s failure to provide cogent legal discussion and
reference to the record for support results in forfeiture of her
argument. (United Grand Corp., supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 165,
fn. 6 [we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not
supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the

                                15
reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he
wants us to adopt].)
                          DISPOSITION
      We affirm the November 15, 2021 judgment and the court’s
orders made on December 13, 2021 and January 28, 2022.
Respondents are awarded costs on appeal.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                              16