Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP v. Mau















Filed 6/28/12 Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP v. Mau CA4/3











>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.



IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
THREE




>

NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP, Cross-complainant and Respondent, v. JACK MAU, Cross-defendant and Appellant.

G045604 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-00304810) O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Affirmed.

Jack Mau, in pro. per.,
for Cross-defendant and Appellant.

Newmeyer & Dillion
and Ben P. Ammerman for Cross-complainant and Respondent.





Jack Mau (“Mau” appeals
from a judgment awarding Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP (“Newmeyer” attorney fees
for services it rendered to Mau in two matters.
Mau’s one-page opening brief
is devoid of any legal argument, citation to authorities, or citations to the
record on appeal. Accordingly, he has
failed to meet his appellate burden and we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

>Complaint and Cross-Complaint

In September 2009, HIT,
Inc. (“HIT”, a company owned and operated by Mau, filed a complaint against
Newmeyer alleging professional negligence
for inadequate representation in a failed real estate transaction. Newmeyer filed a demurrer to HIT’s complaint
and a cross-complaint against Mau seeking payment for legal services provided
in the real estate transaction and in an unrelated href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">labor dispute. Newmeyer’s demurrer to HIT’s complaint was
sustained without leave to amend, and we affirmed the judgment on the
complaint. (Hit, Inc. v. Newmeyer & Dillion (Mar. 2, 2012, G044927) [nonpub. opn.].)

At the bench trial on
Newmeyer’s cross-complaint, Mau represented himself. The court granted Newmeyer’s motion in limine
precluding Mau from raising alleged legal malpractice or professional
negligence as a defense for his failure to pay legal fees. It determined Mau owed Newmeyer for legal
services rendered in the real estate matter and the labor dispute and awarded
damages in the form of attorney fees to Newmeyer in the amount of $21,210 plus
costs.

DISCUSSION

Mau contends the
judgment should be reversed. We
disagree.

Mau’s one-page href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">opening brief is comprised of five
sentences completely unsupported by any references to the record or citations
to any legal authority. Mau hints at the
following general claims of error: (1)
He was denied the opportunity to adequately cross-examine the Newmeyer attorney
who performed the legal services and
should have been granted a continuance to secure the appearance of that
attorney; and (2) the court erred by not allowing him to introduce evidence of
the claimed malpractice by Newmeyer.

A judgment or order of
the lower court is presumed correct. (>Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d
557, 564 (Denham).) It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate
the existence of reversible error. (>San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.
County of Stanislaus (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 608, 626.) The trial court rulings Mau appeals are
reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (Denham,
supra, 2 Cal.3d. at p.
566.) This standard is applied to
rulings on evidence (Pannu v. Land Rover
of North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1317), as well as the
trial court’s discretion to deny a continuance.
(Johnson v. >Alameda> County >Medical> Center (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 521,
532.) Discretion is only abused in those
instances where the court “exceeds the bounds of reason.” (Denham,
supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 566.)

In view of Mau’s
complete failure to include any citations to the record or to any legal
authority, or to engage in any meaningful analysis of his claims of error, he
has failed to carry his appellate burden to show an abuse of discretion. Statements in a brief regarding issues in the
appellate record must cite to the corresponding page of the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(C).) We may disregard the
portions of appellant’s brief in noncompliance with this rule. (Dominguez
v. Financial Indem. Co.> (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 388, 392, fn.
2.) Moreover, “‘The reviewing court is
not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search
of error or grounds to support the judgment. . . . [E]very
brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the
points made. If none is furnished on a
particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.’ [Citation.]”
(McComber v. Wells (1999)
72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523 (McComber).)

An appellant acting in
propria persona has the same burden to affirmatively demonstrate reversible
error as one represented by counsel and is not entitled to special
treatment. (Id. at p. 523; see also Stebley
v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 606.) In view of Mau’s opening brief’s complete
failure to provide references to record, citations to legal authority, or any
analysis of his claims of error, meaningful appellate review impossible. Thus, we disregard the brief in its entirety
and affirm the judgment. (>McComber, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at
p. 522.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is
affirmed. Respondent is awarded its href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">costs on appeal.







O’LEARY,
P. J.



WE CONCUR:







MOORE, J.







IKOLA, J.