Casello & Lincoln v. Tong CA4/3

Filed 10/4/13 Casello & Lincoln v. Tong CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CASELLO & LINCOLN,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G046566

v. (Super. Ct. No. 07CC12396)

TU MY TONG, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven L. Perk, Judge. Affirmed. Tu My Tong, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Casello & Lincoln and James H. Casello for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury awarded plaintiff Casello & Lincoln damages in the amount of 1 $87,765 in this attorney fee collection action against defendant Tu My Tong. Tong appeals the judgment, but her opening brief is incoherent (Tong did not file a reply brief). Tong fails to clearly identify alleged errors by the court. She also fails to provide legal citations and analysis to support her contentions of error (to the extent such alleged errors can be identified). Tong fails to cite to the record to support most of her factual assertions. Most of the asserted facts in the opening brief have nothing to do with the legal issues that can be identified. Tong‟s appendix does not include page numbers on most pages, making it difficult to find the evidence to which the brief cites (when it actually does so). To the extent we can discern Tong‟s contentions, they are unmeritorious. We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTS