Filed 8/7/26 Al-Bayati v. Los Angeles Unified School District CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
ISSA AL-BAYATI, a Minor, etc., B342875
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 19STCV08232)
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Jon R. Takasugi, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Sharif & Wilkerson and Roger L. Wilkerson
III for Plaintiff and Appellant.
BDG Law Group, Michele M. Goldsmith and Sarah E.
Hernandez for Defendant and Respondent.
_______________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Issa Al-Bayati, by and through his guardian ad
litem Maha Al Sadoon, appeals a judgment entered against him
and in favor of defendant Los Angeles Unified School District.
We find this matter appropriate for disposition by a
memorandum opinion in accordance with the California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v.
Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum
opinions].)
The operative complaint alleges Al-Bayati was a student
attending Sal Castro Middle School within the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) when he was shot by a fellow
classmate in the classroom. Al-Bayati sued LAUSD, alleging
that LAUSD negligently supervised the classroom by failing to
discover that a classmate had a loaded weapon in the classroom
and failing to protect him from the ultimate shooting. (These
facts are taken from our prior appellate opinion in I.A. v. Los
Angeles Unified School District (May 10, 2023, B313331)
[nonpub. opn.], of which we take judicial notice at LAUSD’s
request, filed March 11, 2026. (Evid. Code §§ 452, subd. (d), 453.)
The matter went to trial and the jury decided in favor of LAUSD,
finding it 0 percent responsible and the minor classmate 100
percent responsible for Al-Bayati’s injuries. The trial court
entered judgment on December 12, 2024. (The judgment itself is
not part of the record before us.) Al-Bayati timely appealed. He
argues the trial court committed error when it:
• Granted LAUSD’s motion to bifurcate the trial, thus
excluding or severely limiting his ability to discuss his
experience and injuries on the day of the shooting;
2
• Excluded and limited all testimony from plaintiff about
the bullying he suffered leading up to the shooting and
LAUSD’s failure to act reasonably in preventing,
remedying or supervising a well-known violent student;
• Excluded and limited testimony from him about his
experience as a student and injuries he suffered on the
day of the incident and LAUSD’s negligence or failure to
act reasonably in preventing or remedying the injuries
before and immediately after the shooting;
• Excluded or limited testimony from him regarding
injuries he suffered immediately after the shooting which
included falling down stairs as he crawled to the
principal’s office for help and LAUSD’s negligence and
failure to act reasonably in preventing or remedying said
injuries;
• Allowed LAUSD to introduce sub-rosa evidence about his
injuries, or mitigation of injuries in 2024, as a defense to
LAUSD’s asserted negligence as it pertained to the
shooting which occurred in 2017;
• Excluded or limited his testimony about his injuries, the
effects of those injuries leading him to attempt suicide in
2023, and the medical instructions to rehabilitate said
injuries;
• Instructed the jury that a portion of fault for a duty to
supervise could be attributed to a minor;
• Included a jury verdict form that allowed a portion of
fault for a duty to supervise, traditionally reserved for
institutions such as schools, to be attributed to a minor;
• Excluded previous testimony in the form of a deposition
transcript from an unavailable minor witness;
3
• Granted LAUSD’s motion to compel a second deposition of
his expert and to impose sanctions against him.
In his Opening Brief (AOB), plaintiff cites to the record as
follows:
• AOB 10: Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2.
• AOB 11: Reporter’s Transcript Volumes 2–8; Exhibit 3;
Exhibit 4.
• AOB 12: Exhibit 5.
• AOB 15: Exhibit 5.
• AOB 16: Exhibit 5; Wilkerson Declaration paragraph 12;
Exhibit 4.
• AOB 17: Exhibits 4-5; Wilkerson Declaration paragraphs
10–14, 15; Reporter’s Transcript Volumes 1–8.
• AOB 18: Exhibit 4; Exhibits 1–2.
• AOB 19: Reporter’s Transcript Volume 1 of 8.
• AOB 20: Reporter’s Transcript Volume 2 of 8; Reporter
Transcript Volumes 2–3.
• AOB 21: Reporter’s Transcript Volume 4 of 8; Reporter
Transcript Volume 4, pages 948–998; 4RT 1025–1044;
Exhibit 2.
• AOB 23: Reporter’s Transcript Volume 4, pages 1042–
1044; Exhibit 6; Reporter’s Transcript Volume 4,
page 1026; Reporter’s Transcript Volumes 4–5.
• AOB 24: Exhibit 10; Reporter’s Transcript Volumes 5–7;
Reporter’s Transcript Volume 7.
• AOB 25: Exhibit 7; Reporter’s Transcript Volume 7;
Reporter’s Transcript Volume 8; Exhibit 8; Exhibit 9.
• AOB 26: Wilkerson Declaration paragraphs 3–20;
Exhibit 4.
• AOB 30: Trial Transcript Volumes 2–8.
4
• AOB 31: Trial Transcript Volumes 2–8.
• AOB 35: Exhibit 2; Reporter’s Transcript Volume 4,
pages 1025–1044.
• AOB 36: Reporter’s Transcript Volume 4 pages 1025–
1044.
• AOB 39: Exhibits 1–2.
It is appellant’s burden to “demonstrate, on the basis of the
record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court
committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.”
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609; Cal. Rules of
Court, rules 8.120, 8.122(a)(3) & 8.224.) Failure to provide an
adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved
against appellant. (Barak v. The Quisenberry Law Firm (2006)
135 Cal.App.4th 654, 660; Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d
1281, 1295–1296; People v. Torres (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 14, 22.)
“In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the
reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal
analysis and citation to the record. Rather than scour the record
unguided, we may decide that the appellant has waived a point
urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to
the record. [Citations.] Similarly, we may disregard conclusory
arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or
fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the
conclusions he wants us to adopt.” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam
(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286–287.)
“[O]n appeal it is manifestly ‘the duty of a party to support
the arguments in its briefs by appropriate reference to the record,
which includes providing exact page citations. [Citation.]
Plaintiff’s single citation to a reporter’s transcript with block
page references, for example, ‘RT Vol 6, 2480–2501,’ frustrates
5
this court’s ability to evaluate which facts a party believes
support his position, particularly when a large portion of that
citation referred to points that appeared to be irrelevant.”
(Navazri v. Ayrapetyan (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 690, 694, fn. 1.)
Citations to the record must cite to the volume and page number
of the record where the matter appears. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “Citing to a tab in the appendix that
includes an entire document, which may include 40 pages or
more, is insufficient.” (In re Marriage of Barth (2012)
210 Cal.App.4th 363, 366, fn. 4.) “As practical matter, the
appellate court is unable to adequately evaluate which facts the
parties believe support their position when nothing more than a
block page reference is offered in the briefs – e.g. ‘C.T. pp. 1-20’,
which upon examination turns out to be 20 nonsequential pages
of deposition testimony.” (Bernard v. Harford Fire Ins. Co. (1991)
226 Cal.App.3d 1203, 1205.)
Here plaintiff supports his arguments with block citations
to the record, referring, for example, to “Vol. 1–8” of the reporter’s
transcript on appeal. He references numerous “exhibits,” which
may or may not have been admitted into evidence and are not
part of the Clerk’s Transcript on appeal. The rare instance of a
citation to a particular volume and page number does not cure
the overall insufficiency of the record citations. As a result of
appellant’s deficient citations to the record, he has forfeited his
issues on appeal.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its
costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
WILEY, J.
SCHERB, J.
7
