Song v. Ni CA6

Filed 1/27/25 Song v. Ni CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

WEIHUI SONG, H051534 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Super. Ct. No. 22CV406059) Appellant,

v.

HAIJIA NI et al.,

Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Plaintiff and cross-defendant Weihui Song (Song) appeals a judgment entered against him following a bench trial. The trial court found Song failed to prove his breach of contract claim against defendants and cross-complainants Haijia Ni and Jim Ni (collectively, Respondents), and it found in favor of Respondents’ cross-complaint against Song for property damage and unpaid rent. Respondents did not file a response to Song’s opening brief. Because Song has not provided an adequate opening brief nor an adequate record on appeal to enable meaningful appellate review, we affirm.

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of 1

Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 852-855.)

We are guided by well-established principles of appellate review. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, [based on] the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609 (Jameson), citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 (Denham).) It is the appellant’s burden to provide this court with an adequate record on appeal. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 72.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.]” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) When an appellant asserts a point on appeal “ ‘but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority’ [citation]” (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862) or fails to support it with appropriate record citations (In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887), this court may treat the point as forfeited. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [requiring parties to “[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”].)2 We are not required to search the record for error (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu)), and “[w]e are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them. [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.) Song has not adhered to these fundamental rules of appellate procedure. Song’s opening brief generally conveys his belief that the trial court failed to consider his evidence and incorrectly applied the law. However, his brief contains no citations to the