Sky v. Roboubiat

Filed 10/15/07 Sky v. Roboubiat CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

I.

Introduction

Laura Roboubiat, appearing in propria persona, challenges the trial courts issuance of a restraining order preventing Roboubiat from contacting or harassing her former landlords, Tatiana and George Sky (collectively Sky). Roboubiat principally maintains: (1) the order is not supported by substantial evidence and was based on perjury; and (2) the trial judge was biased against her. We reject Roboubiats arguments and affirm.

II.

Facts and Procedural History

Our review in this case is severely impeded by multiple deficiencies in Roboubiats briefs. Although Roboubiats briefs contain numerous references to facts and procedural details, these facts are selectively presented in a light most favorable to Roboubiat and include no record citations to support them. In fact, the Statement of Facts and Statement of Case in Roboubiats opening brief contain not one single citation to the record. Moreover, many of the facts appear to have little bearing upon the issues presented on appeal, or the factual or procedural history of the litigation between the parties.

We summarize the relevant facts as best we can. A contested hearing was held on April 25, 2007, at which both parties testified. The discord between the parties apparently began with a disagreement over which party, the landlord (Sky) or the tenant (Roboubiat) was to pay for certain utilities such as water and garbage collection. The disagreement escalated to the point where Sky applied for a restraining order against Roboubiat alleging Roboubiat threw eggs and garbage at Skys front door and allowed entry to our hallway to 3 men who pounded on our door and yelled threats [in Russian] including You will be sorry you were born. You will eat that garbage, Russian pig.  In her testimony Roboubiat denied spreading the garbage by Skys front door and claimed that Sky was making up the story about the men who came to her door and threatened her.

After hearing the parties testimony, Judge Ollie Marie Victoire issued a restraining order valid until April 25, 2010, forbidding Roboubiat from contacting, harassing, or coming within 50 yards of Sky. At the same time, Judge Victoire denied Roboubiats application for a restraining order against Sky. Roboubiat filed a timely appeal.

III.

Discussion

Roboubiat is representing herself on appeal, as she did below. One may act as his or her own attorney, but when a litigant appears in propria persona, he or she is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure and evidence as an attorney. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.)

We first find Roboubiat has waived her right to argue on appeal that the courts order was not supported by substantial evidence or was otherwise improperly issued because she has failed to properly state the evidence and the nature of the proceedings in the trial court.  It is well established that a reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact. [Citations.] (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 (Foreman).) Roboubiats assertions that the order was based solely upon Skys perjury, and that there was insufficient proper evidence to support this order, requires her to demonstrate that there is no substantial evidence to support the challenged rulings. (See ibid.; Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60; Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621, 630-631.) All material evidence on that question must be set forth in Roboubiats briefs and not merely Roboubiats own evidence. (Foreman, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 881; Jordan v. City of Santa Barbara (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1255 (Jordan).) Unless this is done, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issue as waived, and may presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact. (Toigo v. Town of Ross (1998) 70 Cal.App.4th 309, 317; Foreman, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 881; Jordan, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1255.)

We find the present appeal is an appropriate one in which to apply this rule of waiver. Roboubiats briefs are devoted exclusively to factually unsupported summaries of portions of the record, or descriptions of matters which were never introduced at trial, which she claims support her version of the facts. In addition, Roboubiats legal arguments are often unintelligible, including rambling accusations against Sky or the trial judge, who she claims is unfit for the bench.

  Instead of a fair and sincere effort to show that the trial court was wrong, appellants brief is a mere challenge to respondents to prove that the court was right.   (People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 283.) The fact that the trial court could, perhaps, have believed Roboubiats contrary evidence, or could have issued other orders, does not demonstrate error on appeal. (See Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 874.)

IV.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Ruvolo, P. J.

We concur:

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.

_________________________

Rivera, J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.