Filed 8/27/26 Ingraham v. L.A. Police Dept. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
MARK INGRAHAM, B349749
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 25STCP00742)
v.
LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Curtis A. Kin, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark Ingraham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney, Denise C. Mills, Chief
Deputy City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City
Attorney, and Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Assistant City Attorney, for
Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Mark Ingraham appears to appeal from a denial
of his motion to set aside dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure
section 473, subdivision (c). 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].)
In his appendix on appeal, Ingraham includes only the trial
court’s order denying his motion to set aside or vacate dismissal,
decided on September 18, 2025, his notice of appeal, and his
notice designating records on appeal. In his notice of appeal, he
writes that he is “appealing the decision of the judge made 9/18.”
Therefore, we conclude he challenges the denial of the motion to
set aside dismissal. In this context, “ ‘[a] ruling on a motion for
discretionary relief under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 473
shall not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of
abuse.’ ” (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002)
28 Cal.4th 249, 257.) Here, Ingraham does not make this
showing.
Appellant’s opening brief reads in its entirety:
“I. INTRODUCTION
“Estop LAPD from arresting me. The majority of LAPD
officers are illegal immigrants.
“II. CONCLUSION
“Petitioner petitions this court to:
“1. Order LAPD to explain why they attempt to arrest me
at 690 S Catalina St Apartment 4x.
2
“2. Estop LAPD and inform that any officers ignoring the
estoppel will be killed by plaintiff.” (The formatting in this
opinion reflects the brief’s own formatting.)
As an initial matter, the trial court’s order is presumed
correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) Thus,
Ingraham must identify any prejudicial error to support a
reversal, and he fails to do so. (Ibid.)
First, the opening brief fails to cite to the trial court record
at all. In this context, “ ‘[t]he appellate court is not required to
search the record on its own seeking error.’ ” (See Young v.
California Fish and Game Commission (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th
1178, 1190–1191.) Consequently, “ ‘[i]f 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.’ ” (Ibid.) Second, appellant must support his
appeal with cogent argument and citation to applicable authority,
and his opening brief contains neither. (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta
Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023)
94 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1070.) Thus, Ingraham waived his
contentions by providing no citations to the record and no cogent
argument, and his appeal consequently fails.
3
DISPOSITION
The order denying the motion to set aside or vacate the
dismissal is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its costs on appeal.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, P. J.
WILEY, J.
4
