Filed 10/18/19 Patrola v. Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Assn. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

—-

BALWINDER PATROLA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SACRAMENTO INDEPENDENT TAXI OWNERS ASSOCIATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

C087444

(Super. Ct. No. 34-2017-00215263-CU-MC-GDS)

Plaintiff Balwinder Patrola appeals the trial court’s entry of judgment dismissing his civil action following the sustaining with prejudice of defendant Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Association’s (the Association) unopposed demurrer to his second amended complaint and denial of Patrola’s motion to set aside that dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).

At the outset, we observe that Patrola is not entitled to special treatment by this court even though he is representing himself without the assistance of an attorney. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) Rather, we are required to hold him to the same standards as a practicing attorney. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) While the implications of this rule may be harsh, it is not intended to penalize self-represented litigants. Instead, it is necessary to maintain the stability and smooth operation of trial and appellate courts.

Patrola summarily argues that the “Trial Court [prejudicially] erred in grant of a demurrer to the [Association] on [its] false statement and as such deprived him of his sixth amendment right to a Fair Trial as well as his due process rights under [the] sixth and fourteenth amendments.” (Sic.) However, Patrola has failed to comply with rules of appellate procedure mandating that he support these contentions with both meaningful argument and citations to the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)-(C); see, e.g., In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) In fact, Patrola’s briefs are devoid of any citations to the appellate record and include only the one quoted sentence of argument without any further explanation of how the identified constitutional provisions were violated, much less citations to case authority supporting the alleged errors.

As recognized by the Supreme Court in Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, “it is settled that: ‘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.’ ” (Id. at p. 564; see also Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13 [forbidding reversal of judgment absent a showing of error that “has resulted in a miscarriage of justice”].) Thus, Patrola must affirmatively demonstrate error through “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) “We are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply arguments for the litigants. [Citations.]” (Martine v. Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 715, 728.) Based on these guiding principles of law, Patrola’s summary claim of error necessarily fails. (Id. at pp. 728-729; In re S.C., at p. 408; Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 [summary arguments are forfeited and may be passed over without consideration].)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The Association is entitled to costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

KRAUSE , J.

We concur:

HULL , Acting P. J.

MURRAY , J.