Fear Not Law Articles: Villafuerte v. Ramos CA2/2

Filed 8/4/26 Villafuerte v. Ramos CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

CESAR ENRIQUE B346459
VILLAFUERTE,
(Los Angels County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BC486408)

MARIO ROBERTO RAMOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed.

Mario Roberto Ramos, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.

Lawnet 1, Peter D. Gordon and Andrew Schoettle for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Mario Robert Ramos (appellant) appeals from an
order entered February 24, 2025. Appellant does not explain the
nature of the order entered on this date, nor does he provide a
citation to the record where the order can be found. He has
provided no reporter’s transcript of the proceedings.1
Appellant’s brief contains no citations to the record. While
appellant mentions Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and the
“14th amendment of the constitution,” his brief contains no other
citations to legal authority and makes no reasoned arguments
under relevant legal standards.
Because appellant has failed to follow the California Rules
of Court and failed to meet his burden of showing error on
appeal, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2014, judgment was entered against
appellant in favor of Cesar Enrique Villafuerte, the respondent in
this matter, following a court trial for a total of $457,709.
On June 4, 2024, Villafuerte filed an application for
renewal of judgment, which the trial court granted for the
judgment amount of $457,709, postjudgment interest of
$433,381.45, and renewal filing fee of $45 for a total of
$891,135.45.
In October 2024, Villafuerte filed an application for the
appearance and examination of appellant.

1 Our independent review of the trial court docket shows a
minute order entered February 24, 2025, on appellant’s motion to
set aside or vacate a judgment pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 473. The order itself is not in the record.

2
On December 12, 2024, appellant filed his motion to set
aside or vacate the judgment. The trial court set a hearing for
February 24, 2025. On that date, a minute order was issued by
the court.

DISCUSSION
Appellant argues, without citation to the record, that he
was unaware that a judgment had been entered against him on
December 16, 2014. He claims that despite participating in a
bench trial, he never “heard or received any notification from the
Court or from any of the other parties involved.”
California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) requires an
appellant to “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by
a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the
matter appears.” Appellant has failed to comply with this rule,
as he has failed to provide any citations to the record
illuminating the relevant portions of the proceedings below.
“‘The appellate court is not required to search the record on
its own seeking error.’ [Citation.] Thus, ‘[i]f a party fails to
support an argument with the necessary citations to the record,
… the argument [will be] deemed to have been waived.’” (Nwosu
v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.)
“‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed
correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to
support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error
must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle
of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional
doctrine of reversible error.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2
Cal.3d 557, 564.) Thus, in challenging a judgment, the appellant
must raise claims of reversible error or other defect, and “present

3
argument and authority on each point made.” (County of
Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591.)
To demonstrate error, the appellant must supply the
reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal
analysis and citation to the record. (United Grand Corp. v.
Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146.) If a
party fails to meet these requirements, its claims are forfeited.
(Ibid.)
An appellant is not exempt from these rules because he is
representing himself in propria persona on appeal. (Nwosu v.
Uba, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1246–1247).
Appellant has failed to meet his obligations to provide
citations to the record, reasoned arguments and citations to
relevant authority. His claims on appeal are forfeited.

DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded his costs of
appeal.

CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
We concur:

RICHARDSON, J.

GOORVITCH, J.

Description	Appellant Mario Robert Ramos (appellant) appeals from an order entered February 24, 2025. Appellant does not explain the nature of the order entered on this date, nor does he provide a citation to the record where the order can be found. He has provided no reporter’s transcript of the proceedings.1 Appellant’s brief contains no citations to the record. While appellant mentions Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and the “14th amendment
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.