Springpoint Senior Living
Filed 2/6/13 Rosenberg v. Springpoint Senior Living CA1/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
JORDAN
ROSENBERG,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
SPRINGPOINT SENIOR LIVING, INC.
et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
A133504
(San
Francisco City
& County
Super. Ct.
No. CGC-10-505893)
Jordan
Rosenberg (appellant) appeals from “judgments†of dismissal based on lack of
respondents. Appellant’s briefs present
an unintelligible compilation of disjointed historical facts, accusations, and
claims which fail to comply with many fundamental rules of appellate
procedure. Those deficiencies include
the failure to: (1) present legal analysis and relevant supporting
authority for each point asserted, with appropriate citations to the record on
appeal (Duarte v. Chino Community
Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856); (2) support references to
the record with a citation to the volume and page number in the record where
the matter appears; and (3) state the nature of the action, the relief
sought in the trial court, the judgment or order appealed from, and summarize
the significant facts, but limited to matters in the record (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), (2)(A), (C)).
These
are not mere technical requirements, but important rules of appellate procedure
designed to alleviate the burden on the court by requiring litigants to present
their cause systematically, so that the court “may be advised, as they read, of
the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate
it from the mass.†(Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325.)
Perhaps
most importantly, the incomprehensible nature of appellant’s briefs makes it
impossible for this court to discern what precise errors he is claiming were made
by the trial judge, and how such errors were prejudicial. We are not required to search the record on
our own seeking error. (
(2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)
We
note that appellant appears before us in propria
persona. While this may explain the
deficiencies in his briefs, it in no way excuses them. (Burnete
v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
1262, 1267 [“ ‘ “[T]he in propria persona litigant is held to the same
restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney†’ â€].) Appellant’s self-represented status does not
exempt him from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve him of his burden
on appeal. Those representing themselves
are afforded no additional leniency or immunity from the rules of appellate
procedure simply because of their propria persona status. (See Rappleyea
v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; see also Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. In the interest of
justice, the parties are to bear their own costs of appeal.
_________________________
RUVOLO,
P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
REARDON, J.
_________________________
HUMES, J.
