Filed 9/1/26 Hanna v. Mogu Mogu 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
BISHOY HANNA, B353123
Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County
v. Super. Ct. No. 22SMCV01647
MOGU MOGU,
Defendant and Respondent.
NDM ENTERPRISE LLC, Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 23SMCV01176
Plaintiff,
v.
BISHOY HANNA et al.,
Defendant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Bradley S. Phillips, Judge. Affirmed.
Bishoy Hanna, in pro per. for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Stephen Abraham and Stephen E. Abraham
for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________
Bishoy Hanna, an individual business owner, sued Mogu
Mogu, a corporation, for willfully interfering with Hanna’s rights
to parking spaces under a commercial lease with landlord NDM
Enterprise LLC. Mogu Mogu moved for judgment on the
pleadings as to Hanna’s then-operative second amended
complaint. Later, Hanna moved for reconsideration of an order
granting in part and denying in part a motion to compel
discovery. On February 3, 2026, the trial court granted judgment
on the pleadings to Mogu Mogu without affording Hanna further
leave to amend and denied reconsideration of Hanna’s discovery
motion. Hanna noticed an appeal from these orders. Issues in
the consolidated action in which NDM Enterprise LLC is plaintiff
are not before us.
On appeal, Hanna argues the trial court improperly
granted judgment on the pleadings while “restricting Appellant’s
access to discovery, declining to consider judicially noticeable
evidence central to the dispute, and denying leave to amend to
include those same facts.” The problem we face, however, is that
Hanna does not discuss how the court restricted discovery, what
matters the court declined to consider, and how this impacted the
causes of action in his second amended complaint, the trial
court’s reasons for granting judgment on the pleadings, or his
ability to successfully amend.
Accordingly, while, in this instance, we treat the granting
of judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend as
appealable (Melton v. Boustred (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 521, 527,
fn. 1), we affirm the judgment because Hanna has not met his
burden on appeal to show reversible error.
2
We presume an appealed judgment is correct and it is
appellant’s burden to overcome this presumption. (Hernandez v.
First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277.) The
appellant may not rest on bare assertions of error but must
present reasoned argument and legal authority on each point
urged. (Ibid.) Failure to do so results in forfeiture. (Ibid.) “We
may and do ‘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.’ ” (Ibid.) An appellate court, then, is not
obliged to make arguments for an appellant or speculate about
the issues an appellant means to raise. (Ibid.; accord, E.I. v. El
Segundo Unified School Dist. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1267, 1288–
1289; Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor
Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1008; Benach
v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) These
rules apply to self-represented litigants. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.)
We recognize Hanna’s contention that leave to amend a
complaint should be liberally granted. But a policy of liberal
amendment does not absolve an appellant of his or her burden to
show reversible error. When it comes to leave to amend, an
appellant must show a reasonable possibility of successful
amendment and cannot rest on “an abstract right to amend.”
(Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service (2000)
81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Instead, an appellant must proffer an
amendment and explain how it will alter the legal effect of the
complaint with reference to the applicable substantive law.
(Ibid.) This Hanna has not done.
3
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment and award appellate costs to Mogu
Mogu.
SCHERB, J.
We Concur:
WILEY, Acting P. J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
4