Filed 3/6/20 Okparaocha v. Sovereign Packaging Inc. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

IWEKA OKPARAOCHA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SOVEREIGN PACKAGING INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

B289004

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC592353)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Peter J. Mirich, Judge. Affirmed.

Iweka Okparaocha, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Cleidin Z. Atanous, Cleidin Z. Atanous; Raffalow, Rhoads & Bretoi and Perry Matthew Forrester for Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________________

Iweka Okparaocha appeals from a judgment in his favor in the amount of $151,550 following a jury trial. We affirm.

Appellant has failed to support his contentions on appeal with coherent arguments supported by analysis and authority. To the extent the court can discern Okparaocha’s contentions, we reject them for the reasons discussed below.

BACKGROUND

Okparaocha sued respondent Sovereign Packing Inc. and one of its employees, Fernando Camarena (collectively, Sovereign), following an automobile accident. Okparaocha was injured when the car he was driving collided with a truck driven by Camarena, who was backing out of a driveway. Camarena was making a delivery for his employer at the time.

Sovereign conceded liability. The court conducted a five-day jury trial on causation and damages, which included testimony by Okparaocha and Camarena as well as by five medical experts. The jury returned a special verdict awarding Okparaocha total damages in the amount of $151,550, consisting of $31,230 for past economic loss (medical expenses); $40,320 for past economic loss (loss of income); $20,000 for future medical expenses; $50,000 for past noneconomic loss; and $10,000 for future noneconomic loss. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Okparaocha in that amount.

DISCUSSION

1. Okparaocha Has Not Met His Obligations as Appellant

On appeal, this court presumes that a trial court’s judgment is correct unless it is shown otherwise. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant’s burden to show both that the trial court erred and that the error affected the outcome of the trial. (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz (2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 281–282 (Shaw).)

To do so, an appellant must “present 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. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) A point that is asserted without legal authority and without factual analysis that includes citations to the record may be deemed forfeited. (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655–656.) Each point must be presented separately under an appropriate heading, showing the nature of the issue and the point to be made. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) Otherwise, the points may be forfeited. (Keyes, at p. 656.)

Okparaocha’s decision to represent himself does not exempt him from the requirements of appellate practice. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) A party who represents himself or herself “ ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’ ” (Id. at p. 1247.)

Okparaocha’s brief does not have separately identified arguments supported by citations to legal authority and the record. It consists of an undifferentiated collection of assertions and descriptions of the trial and court rulings that are not linked to particular arguments. It does not provide any coherent argument that this court may analyze.

The court has nevertheless attempted to discern Okparaocha’s contentions from his brief and discusses those contentions below. To the extent that Okparaocha intended to assert any other arguments, those arguments have been forfeited.

2. Okparaocha Forfeited His Argument that the Damages Were Insufficient by Failing to File a Motion for a New Trial

Okparaocha contends that the damages the jury awarded were inadequate based upon the evidence of his injuries and the amount of damages he demanded.

A plaintiff who claims that the damages a jury awarded are too low based upon the evidence may not make such an argument on appeal unless he or she first asserts the argument in a timely motion for a new trial in the trial court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. (5); Schroeder v. Auto Driveway Co. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 908, 918, fn. 6; County of Los Angeles v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1121.) Okparaocha did not file a motion for a new trial. He therefore may not make the argument on appeal.

3. Okparaocha Has Not Shown Error or Prejudice in the Trial Court’s Decision to Exclude Photographs from Evidence

Okparaocha claims that the trial court wrongly precluded him from admitting photographs showing his physical condition prior to the accident. The record shows that, when Okparaocha’s counsel sought to introduce pre-accident photographs, Sovereign’s counsel objected on the ground that the photographs had not been produced during discovery and had not been included in the trial exhibit book. After further argument and after the court reviewed the proffered photographs, the court ruled that one of the photographs could be admitted, and permitted Okparaocha to choose which.

The court stated that, in making its ruling, it had exercised its discretion under Evidence Code section 352. The court “weigh[ed] the fact that these photos were not in the exhibit book, not divulged to counsel.”

Okparaocha has not identified any error in this ruling. We review a trial court’s decision to exclude evidence under Evidence Code section 352 for abuse of discretion. (People v. Hamilton (2009) 45 Cal.4th 863, 930.) The trial court could properly consider the fact that at least most of the photographs had not been disclosed before trial. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, Local Rules, rule 3.52 requires parties to exchange and pre-number exhibits before trial, except for exhibits anticipated in good faith to be used for impeachment. In addition, more than one photograph showing Okparaocha’s appearance before the accident would have been cumulative. The trial court permitted one such photograph. The court had discretion to exclude such cumulative evidence on the ground that it would needlessly consume time. The court could also consider the possibility of unfair prejudice to Sovereign, who saw the photographs for the first time during Okparaocha’s direct examination.

In addition, Okparaocha has failed to show prejudice from the exclusion of the photographs. To obtain reversal, an appellant who complains about a decision to exclude evidence must show that the court’s decision affected the outcome of the trial. (Shaw, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at pp. 281–282; Evid. Code, §§ 353, 354.) Okparaocha was permitted to testify about his physical condition before and after the accident and to illustrate his pre-accident condition with one photograph. The jury also heard extensive expert testimony concerning Okparaocha’s post-accident physical problems and whether the accident caused them. The record suggests no basis to conclude that exclusion of the photographs affected the jury’s verdict, and Okparaocha does not provide any.

4. There Was No Error in the Amount of Damages Included in the Judgment

Okparaocha apparently claims that the jury actually awarded damages for past economic loss in the amount of $3,102,230 rather than $31,230. The argument is meritless.

Okparaocha cites the portion of the postverdict proceedings in which the jury was polled. The court clerk read the special verdict form that the jury had completed, and, in an obvious error, the court reporter recorded that the clerk read the jury’s answer for “past economic loss medical expenses” as $3,102,230. The verdict form itself states the jury’s damage award in that category was $31,230. The judge’s question immediately following the clerk’s reading confirms that this was the correct amount. The judge asked, “[I]s there anyone who did not vote that are [sic] amount. $31,230? That would be 12 yes.” The amount of damages for past economic loss written in the special verdict form clearly appears as $31,230. The judgment is correct in including that amount in the total damage award.

5. The Trial Court Did Not Preclude Okparaocha’s Wife From Testifying

Okparaocha claims that his wife was denied the opportunity to testify. The record shows otherwise.

Sovereign made a motion to exclude testimony from Okparaocha’s wife (Vivian) on the ground that, although she was listed on the witness list, she was not identified in response to an interrogatory asking for the identity of witnesses who would testify about Okparaocha’s claim for general damages. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Vivian could testify, but that Sovereign could conduct a 30-minute deposition prior to her testimony, at Okparaocha’s expense. The court permitted the deposition to take place in the courtroom immediately.

Vivian did not testify. The record does not explain why not, although the court did later report to the jury after an unrecorded conference in chambers that “[t]here are witnesses, who I mentioned before, who are now not going to be called.” In any event, Okparaocha does not identify any record support for his claim that the court excluded Vivian’s testimony. We therefore reject the argument.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Sovereign is entitled to its costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

ASHMANN-GERST, J.

CHAVEZ, J.

Parties and Attorneys
Okparaocha v. Sovereign Packaging Inc. et al.
Division 2
Case Number B289004
Party Attorney

Iweka Okparaocha : Plaintiff and Appellant
527 W. Regent Street
Unit 226
Inglewood, CA 90301 Pro Per

Sovereign Packaging Inc. : Defendant and Respondent
Cleidin Zoumalan Atanous
Law Office of Cleidin Z. Atanous
500 S. Kraemer Blvd.
Ste 205
Brea, CA 92821-6761

Fernando Camarena : Defendant and Respondent
Cleidin Zoumalan Atanous
Law Office of Cleidin Z. Atanous
500 S. Kraemer Blvd.
Ste 205
Brea, CA 92821-6761