M&C Products Analysis Technology v. Bertik
Filed 12/3/09 M&C Products Analysis Technology v. Bertik CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
M&C PRODUCTS ANALYSIS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT BERTIK, Defendant and Appellant. | 2d Civil No. B200090 (Super. Ct. No. SC028018) (Ventura County) |
Robert Bertik appeals from an order awarding attorney fees to respondent M&C Products Analysis Technology (M&C). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is the second time this case is before us. In a prior unpublished opinion, we reversed the order of the trial court denying attorney fees to M&C. We held that M&C was entitled to an award of fees as a matter of law because the trial court found that M&C was the prevailing party under both Civil Code section 1717 and Labor Code section 218.5. (M&C Products Analysis Technology, Inc. v. Bertik (Oct. 19, 2006, B179195).)
On remand, the trial court awarded M&C $1,187,906.46 in attorney fees for trial and post-trial proceedings, approximately 90 percent of the amount requested. It awarded an additional $42,277.50, as attorney fees on appeal.
On appeal, Bertik argues the fee award is excessive because the trial judge initially determined not to award any attorney fees and the judge who made the award on remand was not the trial judge.
DISCUSSION
The trial courts determination of the amount of attorney fees will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.)
Bertik cites no authority and makes no cogent argument regarding the specific fees he believes are excessive. An appellate court will not make a partys argument for him. (See, e.g., Golden Day Schools, Inc. v. Department of Education (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 681, 695, fn. 9 [an issue merely raised by a party without any argument or authority is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion].)
Another fatal omission is plaintiff's failure to provide an adequate record. An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate trial error. "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." (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.) Bertik provides us only with the record relating to the award of fees for the prior appeal. Without the record relating to the fees awarded for trial and post-trial work, we have no basis on which to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover attorney fees and costs on appeal in an amount to be determined by the trial court.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
COFFEE, J.
Steven Hintz, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Law Offices of Richard A. Hofman, Richard A. Hofman; Robert Bertik, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Michael P. Barbee and Claudia Kloss for Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
