Filed 7/31/26 France v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
JEANETTE FRANCE, B349309
Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC719459
v.
LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT
OF WATER AND POWER,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Michael Shultz, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeanette France in pro per.
Hydee Feldstein Soto, Los Angeles City Attorney, Valerie
L. Flores, Los Angeles Interim General Counsel, Jennifer M.
Gregg, Los Angeles Assistant City Attorney, and Heather E.
Jones, Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and
Respondents.
____________________
The trial court granted summary judgment against
Jeanette France in December 2019. In 2025, the trial court
denied a motion to vacate that judgment for lack of
jurisdiction. France appeals this order. We affirm.
We presume the trial court’s ruling is correct. (Gee v.
American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th
1412, 1416.) An appellant bears the affirmative burden of
demonstrating prejudicial error. (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar
Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050,
1070.) Appellants must support their assertions with cogent
argument with citation to authority and accurate citations to the
record. (Ibid.) These rules apply regardless of whether the
appellant appears in pro per. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.)
France does not meet this standard. France’s briefs contain
no cites to the record. (Cal. Rule of Court 8.204(a)(1)(C).)
Moreover, her arguments do not specify an error the trial court
made with respect to the 2025 order. (In re Marriage of Falcone
& Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.)
France’s arguments instead focus on why the trial court’s
2019 summary judgment decision was incorrect. To the extent
she meant to appeal that order, we are without jurisdiction: that
decision is over six years old. (Cal. Rule of Court 8.104(a)(l);
Ricketts v. McCormack (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1336–1337.)
Because France has not met her burden to show error in
any order we have jurisdiction to consider, we affirm.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the order and award costs to Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power. We deny France’s motion to
augment as not relevant to our decision.
WILEY, ACTING P. J.
We concur:
VIRAMONTES, J.
SCHERB, J.