Scarborough
Filed 7/26/12 Scarborough v. Grant
CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE
LARRY SCARBOROUGH,
Plaintiff
and Appellant,
v.
MARISSA GRANT,
Defendant
and Respondent.
B236051
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct.
No. SC107329)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Craig D. Karlan, Judge. Affirmed.
Larry
Scarborough, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McClaugherty &
Associates, Jay S. McClaugherty and Thomas F. McNamara for Defendant and
Respondent.
_________________________
Larry
Scarborough in propria persona appeals
from the judgment following the jury’s determination by special verdict in
favor of Marissa Grant. Scarborough
seeks reversal of the judgment, contending that he should have prevailed on his
claim for negligence against Grant arising from an automobile collision. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This action arose from
an automobile collision involving Scarborough and Grant. Our
recitation of the facts is limited because Scarborough did not provide a
reporter’s transcript of the jury trial, and the clerk’s transcript fails to
include the operative complaint or any other documents from which we can
determine the circumstances surrounding the collision. We also cannot rely on the facts presented in
Grant’s brief because she failed to comply with the rules requiring citation to
the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(C); see Duarte v. Chino
Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 [“If a party fails
to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion
of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been
waived.”].)
The
court’s minute order indicates the jury unanimously concluded by special
verdict that Grant was not negligent.
Judgment was entered, and Scarborough appealed.
DISCUSSION
Scarborough
appears to contend that the jury reached an erroneous conclusion based upon the
evidence presented at trial. It is not,
however, entirely clear whether Scarborough’s recitation
of the “facts” in his opening brief
was evidence actually presented to the jury.
Assuming the jury heard the facts as Scarborough
represents in his briefs, we reject his argument for the following reasons.
First,
although Grant is convinced that Scarborough is
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, we are
not. It appears to us that Scarborough
would like this court to retry the case, contending that Grant was negligent in
“not yielding the right of way on her left [hand] turn on a green light
[because] we both had a green light.” (Capitalization omitted.) It is not our role as an appellate court to
retry the case. (Blye v. Affonso (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 241, 243 [“ ‘ “It
is, of course, the responsibility of the trier of fact to evaluate the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their
testimony.’ ’ ”].)
Second,
to the extent Scarborough’s argument is a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, he has waived that
argument. An appellant that has not
provided this court with a reporter’s transcript cannot challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence on appeal because it is presumed that the
unreported trial testimony would
demonstrate the absence of error. (See
973, 992.)
Third,
Scarborough has failed to cite legal authority to
support the arguments he has made. When
a brief fails to contain a legal argument with citation of authorities, we may
treat the arguments as waived or abandoned.
(Ellenberger v. Espinosa
(1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 948.)
Fourth,
given the uncertainty of Scarborough’s claim of error,
we note that an appellant may not obtain a reversal simply by pointing out
error. He must show the claimed error is
prejudicial. (In re Marriage of McLaughlin (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 327, 337.) Absent such argument, we must presume any
errors were harmless.
As
for any irregularities in the trial court proceedings, we have considered Scarborough’s
contentions and find no basis to reverse the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. No costs are
awarded.
ALDRICH, J.
We concur:
KLEIN,
P. J.
KITCHING,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] The
complaint apparently was filed on behalf of Larry Scarborough and Joan
Scarborough. Only Larry Scarborough
appeals from the judgment.
