Filed 2/10/20 Washington v. Neloms CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

JACKIE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

OSCAR LEON NELOMS,

Defendant and Respondent.

B294088

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC702626)

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

Law Offices of Francisco A. Suarez and Francisco A. Suarez for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

Appellant Jackie Washington filed this action against respondent Oscar Neloms in April 2018. The operative complaint asserted claims for recovery of specific personal property (often referred to as “claim and delivery”), and conversion. According to the complaint, appellant was a tenant at respondent’s residential property from 1990 to 1997. In 1997, appellant surrendered his car and other valuable personal property to respondent, as collateral for unpaid rent. Appellant demanded the return of the property several times between 1999 and 2003, to no avail.

Respondent demurred to the complaint, asserting the statute of limitations barred appellant’s claims. In opposition, appellant claimed respondent had only recently unequivocally told him that he would not return the property, and the limitations period had not started to run until then. Following a hearing, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, concluding the applicable three-year limitations period barred appellant’s claims. The court reasoned that by 2003, appellant should have known that respondent had repudiated appellant’s ownership of the property. Appellant timely appealed.

Although the trial court based its ruling solely on the statute of limitations, appellant’s brief on appeal makes no mention of that issue. Instead, appellant raises various arguments relating to his actual ownership of the car. His failure to challenge the basis for the trial court’s ruling is fatal to his appeal. (See Goncharov v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1157, 1167, fn. 8 [issue not briefed is forfeited]; Sharabianlou v. Karp (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1150 [“Absent some argument that the trial court’s conclusion was erroneous, we will not reverse its decision”]; Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631-632 [trial court’s ruling is presumed correct and burden is on appellant to demonstrate error].) Accordingly, we find no basis to reverse the trial court’s judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL

REPORTS

MANELLA, P. J.

We concur:

COLLINS, J.

CURREY, J.