Court Opinion

ID: 9941085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 20:03:16.248011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:13.079487
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/15/24 Harsini v. Rahimi CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE

 MIKE HARSINI,                                                   B329350

          Plaintiff and Appellant,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No. 21STCV32868)
          v.

 MOSTAFA RAHIMI,

          Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Mark A. Borenstein, Judge. Affirmed.
     Mike Harsini, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
     Law Offices of Allen Hyman and Allen Hyman for
Defendant and Respondent.

                          ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
       Mike Harsini appeals from a defense judgment entered in
his breach of contract lawsuit against his mother’s doctor,
Mostafa Rahimi. Harsini failed to demonstrate trial court error
and we therefore affirm.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       After his mother passed away in 2019, Harsini brought a
wrongful death lawsuit against his mother’s senior living facility
and its executive director. The trial court granted summary
judgment for the defendants. The court’s ruling was based in
part on an uncontroverted expert declaration opining that the
defendants did not cause or contribute to Harsini’s mother’s
death.
       The following month, Harsini filed a complaint against
Rahimi for breach of an oral contract. The complaint alleged that
Rahimi had agreed to provide expert testimony in the wrongful
death lawsuit, he failed to do so, and, as a result, Harsini lost the
lawsuit. Harsini attached a letter to the complaint in which he
asked Rahimi to submit a declaration for Harsini to use in his
wrongful death suit. The letter stated Rahimi would “receive
20% of the compensatory and punitive damages [Harsini] can
collect.”
       The matter proceeded to a bench trial. At the conclusion of
Harsini’s case, the trial court granted judgment for Rahimi
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 631.8. The court
concluded no contract was ever formed between Harsini and
Rahimi. Further, even if an agreement was formed, at most it
“contemplated that Dr. Rahimi would come to court and testify, if
he was subpoenaed, but the plaintiff admitted that there was no
subpoena. [¶] That was a failure of a condition essential to the
agreement.” The court, citing Van Norden v. Metson (1946) 75

                                  2
Cal.App.2d 595, further determined the proposed agreement
would be void under California law because it included a
contingency fee. Finally, the court concluded Harsini failed to
show that he suffered harm because he did not establish that,
had Rahimi provided expert testimony, Harsini would have
prevailed in the wrongful death case.
       The court entered a defense judgment. Harsini timely
appealed.1
                           DISCUSSION
       It is a fundamental rule of appellate review that an
appealed judgment or order is presumed correct, and error must
be affirmatively shown. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594,
609 (Jameson); Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557,
564.) “ ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all
presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by
the appellate court.’ ” (Jameson, at p. 609.) It is also the
appellant’s burden to provide reasoned argument and citations to
relevant legal authority to support that argument. (Lee v. Kim
(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 721; Hernandez v. First Student, Inc.
(2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277.) Accordingly, “[w]hen an
appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it
with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the
point as forfeited.” (Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48
Cal.App.5th 1014, 1075 (Delta Stewardship).) These “same rules

1     We deny Rahimi’s request for judicial notice of a different
opinion of this court involving Harsini. The opinion is not
relevant to our analysis. (Grosz v. California Dept. of Tax & Fee
Administration (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 428, 447, fn. 12 [appellate
courts will not take judicial notice of matters irrelevant to the
dispositive point on appeal].)

                                   3
apply to a party appearing in propria persona as to any other
party.” (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205 (Flores).)
       Harsini’s appellate briefing fails to discuss the trial court’s
ruling or its reasoning. He also fails to cite to the record or to any
legal authority to support a claim of trial court error. Instead,
Harsini repeatedly re-asserts his claim that Rahimi agreed to
testify or provide a declaration in the underlying wrongful death
lawsuit and failed to do so.2 However, an appeal reviews the
correctness of a trial court judgment. It is not a second
opportunity to litigate the appellant’s allegations. (In re Zeth S.
(2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 405.)
       The only argument we can discern from Harsini’s briefing
is that Rahimi “mentioned that there is no need to have him
subpoenaed” to testify in the wrongful death lawsuit. Not only
did Harsini forfeit this contention by raising it for the first time
in his reply brief (Raceway Ford Cases (2016) 2 Cal.5th 161, 178),
he has not connected the assertion to any claim of trial court
error. It is not clear if Harsini is indicating the evidence was
insufficient to support the trial court’s factual findings, or
contending the trial court erred in its legal conclusions. Nor does
Harsini provide a citation to the record to support his factual
assertion. This court is not obligated to “cull the record for the
benefit of the appellant . . . .” (Claudio v. Regents of the
University of California (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 224, 230.)

2      Harsini also contends Rahimi caused his mother’s death by
failing to promptly order dialysis treatments for her. However,
he fails to explain how this argument relates to his breach of
contract lawsuit or the trial court ruling.

                                  4
      “It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to
undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of
correctness.” (Delta Stewardship, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1075; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th
888, 890, fn. 1 [appellate court will not develop appellant’s
arguments].) Merely restating allegations without offering any
reasoned argument is insufficient to create a cognizable issue for
appellate review. Harsini has not demonstrated any error and
has forfeited any points raised by failing to support them with
reasoned argument, citations to the record, or citations to legal
authority. We therefore affirm the judgment. (Flores, supra, 224
Cal.App.4th at p. 205.)

                                5
                       DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed. Respondent to recover his costs
on appeal.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                        ADAMS, J.

We concur:

                 LAVIN, Acting P. J.

                 EGERTON, J.

                               6