Court Opinion

ID: 9365705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 19:02:44.135062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.009961
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/24/23 Sloan v. Cairns 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                   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 JAMIE L. SLOAN,                                                              D080143

            Plaintiff and Respondent,

            v.                                                                (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021-
                                                                              00044690-CU-HR-CTL)
 NIGEL CAIRNS,

            Defendant and Appellant.

          APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert C. Longstreth, Judge. Affirmed.
          Nigel Cairns, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
          No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                                    I
                                                     INTRODUCTION
          Nigel Cairns, proceeding in propria persona, appeals an order granting
a request for a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) filed by Jamie
Sloan, who works as a security guard at the apartment building in which
Cairns resides. Cairns presents no cogent argument warranting reversal of
the CHRO. Therefore, we affirm.
                                      II
                               BACKGROUND
      In October 2021, Sloan filed a request for a CHRO against Cairns, a
resident in the apartment building in which Sloan works as a security guard.
Sloan alleged that Cairns physically threatened him and other security
guards on several occasions. He stated Cairns hurled insults at him and the
other security guards, acted aggressively towards them, and challenged him
to a fist fight. Additionally, he stated Cairns approached his pregnant wife at
a grocery store and grabbed her by the arm, which left a red mark.
      Together with his request for a CHRO, Sloan filed: (1) a memorandum
from Sloan to the apartment building’s property management company,
which summarized Cairns’s abusive behavior; (2) a statement from the
apartment building’s property manager, in which she said that Cairns
“created a hostile work environment” by “harass[ing] and insult[ing]” the
building employees and security guards; and (3) a statement from Sloan’s
wife, in which she said that Cairns approached her at a grocery store, “put
his hand on [her] arm,” and told her that Sloan and his coworkers were
“pieces of shit.”
      After a hearing, the trial court granted a three-year CHRO against
Cairns, prohibiting him from contacting or harassing Sloan or his wife. It
included a 100-yard stay-away order, modified to five feet at the apartment
building. The minute order for the CHRO hearing states the court heard
witness testimony during the hearing. We have not received a reporter’s
transcript for the hearing. Cairns appeals the CHRO.

                                      2
                                       III

                                DISCUSSION1
      “ ‘To prevail on appeal, an appellant must establish both error and
prejudice from that error. [Citation.] In order to demonstrate error, an
appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument
supported by legal analysis and citation to the record. Rather than scour the
record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has forfeited a point urged
on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record.
[Citations.] Similarly, we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not
supported by pertinent legal authority.’ ” (Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch
Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 583, 597 (Champir); see United Grand Corp. v.
Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146 [“ ‘In order to
demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some
cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’ ”].)
      These principles of appellate practice apply to Cairns, even though he
is proceeding with this appeal as a self-represented litigant. “ ‘[S]uch a party
is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no
greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’ ” (Nwosu v. Uba
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247; see Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247
Cal.App.4th 570, 574 [“Although [a party] is representing himself in propria
persona, he is not exempt from the rules governing appeals.”].) “In other
words, when a litigant accepts the risks of proceeding without counsel, he or
she is stuck with the outcome, and has no greater opportunity to cast off an

1     Sloan did not file a respondent’s brief. However, we do not consider his
failure to file a respondent’s brief as an admission of error. Rather, we
examine the record based on Cairns’s arguments to determine whether
reversal is required. (In re Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234
Cal.App.4th 1339, 1342, fn. 1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)
                                       3
unfavorable judgment than he or she would if represented by counsel.”
(Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267.)
      In his opening brief, Cairns presents his version of the incidents
discussed in Sloan’s request for a CHRO. The opening brief portrays Sloan as
the aggressor and Cairns as the victim. Additionally, the opening brief
includes intermittent ad hominem attacks on Sloan and other security guards
who work at the apartment building, describing them as “wretched” and
“hostile” people. However, Cairns does not make any cogent argument,
supported by citations to the record and legal authorities, articulating why
the trial court erred in granting the CHRO, or why the CHRO should
otherwise be reversed. Cairns has forfeited his challenge to the CHRO by not
making a cogent argument for reversal, supported by record citations and
legal authorities. (Champir, supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 597.)
      Even if we were to construe the opening brief as broadly arguing that
there was insufficient evidence to support the CHRO, we would still affirm.
As noted, the trial court conducted a hearing, which included witness
testimony. However, we have not received any reporter’s transcript for the
CHRO hearing. “When there is no reporter’s transcript and no error is
evident from the face of the appellate record, we presume that the unreported
trial testimony would demonstrate absence of error.” (Shenefield v.
Shenefield (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 619, 633, fn. 12; see also Structural Steel
Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 459, 466 [“There is
no reporter’s transcript, and the parties did not request a written statement
of decision. Under the circumstances, we presume all intendments to support
the judgment.”].) Applying that presumption here, we must conclude the

                                       4
unreported witness testimony rendered at the hearing would have supplied

the evidence necessary to support the trial court’s CHRO findings.2
                                     IV
                               DISPOSITION
     The civil harassment restraining order is affirmed.

                                                           McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DATO, J.

2      In the trial court, Cairns filed his own request for a CHRO against
Sloan, which resulted in the initiation of a separate case, Case No. 37-2021-
00044796-CU-PT-CTL. On appeal, Cairns moved to augment the record with
trial court documents he filed in Case No. 37-2021-00044796-CU-PT-CTL—
documents in which Cairns again describes his version of the events at issue.
We deny the motion to augment, as there is no indication the present case
was consolidated with Case No. 37-2021-00044796-CU-PT-CTL, and, in any
event, the documents are irrelevant to the disposition of the appeal.
                                      5