Filed 1/28/20 I Park, Inc. v. Ku 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

I PARK, INC.,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KI WON KU et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

B292670

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC608199)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Michael S. Lee and Michael S. Lee for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Office of James Y. Chu and James Y. Chu for Plaintiff and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Defendants and appellants Ki Won Ku and Raymond Jaemo Ku (appellants) appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent I Park, Inc. (Park). We conclude that appellants have forfeited each of their appellate contentions, and thus we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Park filed the present action in January 2016 against U.N.I. Steel Construction, Inc. (UNI Steel) and Does 1-20. The operative complaint alleged that defendants failed to build a fabricated steel landing and stairs in a workmanlike manner, giving rise to causes of action for breach of subcontract, negligence, breach of warranty, and recovery on performance bond and contractor’s license bond.

In April 2016, appellants were named and served as Doe defendants.

Following a three-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment “in favor of Plaintiff I. Park, Inc. as against all Defendants U.N.I. Steel Construction, Inc., Ki Won Ku and Jae Mo Ku aka ‘Raymond Ku’, jointly and severally as follows: principal in the amount of $145,599.98, prejudgment interest at a rate of 10% per annum to entry of judgment, attorney fees and costs as provided by law.” Notice of entry of judgment was served on July 18, 2018. Appellants timely appealed from the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Appellants contend on appeal that the trial court (1) “erred in denying defendants’ motion in limine,” (2) “failed to retroactively revoke defendant UNI’s license,” and (3) “erred in its finding of alter ego against individual defendants Ki Won Ku and Raymond Jaemo Ku.” We conclude appellants have forfeited each of these contentions.

On appeal, “[w]e must presume the judgment is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error.” (Jones v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376; Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 [“An appealed judgment or challenged ruling is presumed correct.”].)

It is a fundamental rule of appellate review that the challenged judgment or order is presumed to be correct and the appellant carries the burden “to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) As part of this burden, the appellant must provide accurate citations to the appellate record, directing the court to the evidence supporting each factual assertion contained in the appellant’s brief. It is not the reviewing court’s responsibility to navigate the record on its own to verify the accuracy of the appellant’s factual assertions. Accordingly, when an opening brief fails to make appropriate references to the record in connection with points urged on appeal, the appellate court may treat those points as waived or forfeited. (See Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree Asset Management, LP (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 368, 384 (Lonely Maiden); accord, Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115; Cal. Rules Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must “[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”].)

Appellate briefs also must provide argument and legal authority for the positions asserted. “ ‘ “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” ’ [Citation.] ‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ argument for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as waived.’ [Citations.]” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956; accord, Hernandez v. First Student, Inc. (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277 [appellant has a duty to make a “ ‘cognizable argument on appeal as to why the trial court abused its discretion’ ”]; Cal. Rules Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [briefs must “support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”].)

Appellants have not met these requirements. First, the appellants’ statement of facts is less than a page long and does not contain a single citation to the evidence adduced at trial. The legal argument, too, is devoid of any citations to the appellate record. To quote another appellate court, “Tacitly, we are invited to comb through the record in search of error. We decline.” (Lonely Maiden, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 384.)

Second, appellants’ opening brief provides virtually no citations to legal authority or reasoned discussion of the appellate issues. For example, although appellants assert the trial court erred in denying a motion in limine, appellants do not identify the particular motion in limine at issue, and they do not cite any legal authority to support their claim of error. Similarly, although appellants contend the trial court failed to “retroactively revoke defendant UNI’s license,” they do not identify the license they believe should have been revoked, nor do they cite any authority to suggest that the trial court had authority to “retroactively revoke” such license or that appellants have standing to raise this issue.

By failing to provide adequate record citations or make any cognizable claims of error, appellants have forfeited any challenge to the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its appellate costs.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

LAVIN, J. EGERTON, J.