Filed 6/26/26 Song v. Liu 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
YOU LIANG SONG,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
A174370
v.
ARTHUR LIU, (San Francisco City &
County
Defendant and
Super. Ct. No. CGC-22-
Respondent.
603479)
Plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining defendant’s
demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint (SAC) and
dismissing the SAC. The record on appeal does not include the
SAC, and plaintiff fails to properly support his arguments on
appeal with citations to the record and/or relevant legal
authorities. We accordingly affirm.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a judicial council form contract complaint
against defendant in December 2022. Among other things,
plaintiff appeared to allege that he had hired defendant as his
attorney for various matters, defendant “did not do his job,” and
defendant charged plaintiff excessive fees. Plaintiff also
appeared to allege that defendant sued him in small claims court
1
with a fraudulent bill. Plaintiff attached to his complaint a Bar
Association of San Francisco (BASF) non-binding arbitration
award resolving a fee dispute between the parties.
The court struck the complaint under Code of Civil
Procedure section 436, subdivision (b) and allowed plaintiff leave
to amend to clarify that he was suing defendant for legal
malpractice, what actions supported plaintiff’s claim, and when
plaintiff sustained injury.
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint stating on its face
that the complaint was for perjury, fraud, to confirm the BASF
judgment, contempt of court, and compensation of $1.38 million.
The court sustained defendant’s demurrer to this complaint with
leave to amend, and plaintiff filed a SAC in October 2024. The
court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the SAC and granted
defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that this is a dispute regarding attorney
fees, fraud, and the unlawful taking of money. He maintains that
he does not owe attorney fees to defendant and the State Bar
already determined that plaintiff is entitled to a refund from
defendant with interest. Plaintiff claims that the trial court
erred in dismissing this action based on defendant’s
representation that the case had settled at mediation, and
“[d]ismissal based on facts that do not exist constitutes reversible
error.” Plaintiff also argues that he served defendant with the
complaint in 2023 and defendant forfeited the right to assert
defenses to the complaint by not timely responding.
2
Plaintiff has forfeited his challenges on appeal by failing to
provide an adequate record. The appellant bears the burden of
providing an adequate record. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th
594, 608–609.) Here, the SAC that is the subject of the order
appealed is not included in the record on appeal, nor are
defendant’s demurrer papers. When an appellant fails to provide
an adequate record, we cannot meaningfully review the trial
court’s decision. (Ibid.) In other words, when the appellant fails
to provide an adequate record, we assume everything the trial
court did was correct and that it should be affirmed. (See id. at
p. 609.)
Plaintiff has also forfeited his claims on appeal by failing to
support them with any citations to authority in his opening brief
or to the appellate record in any of his submissions. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)–(C); Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1245–1246 & fn. 14 [failure to present
argument with references to record results in forfeiture of any
assertion that could have been raised]; Ewald v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948 [failure to provide
adequate legal authority and analysis forfeits contentions on
appeal].)
We recognize that plaintiff brings this appeal without the
benefit of legal representation. Nonetheless, his in propria
persona status does not exempt him from the rules of appellate
procedure or relieve him of his burden on appeal. (See Nwosu v.
Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246–1247.)
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to defendant.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)
BROWN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
STREETER, J.
SWEET, J.
Song v. Liu (A174370)
Judge of the Superior Court of Marin County, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
4