Ming v. Kappos CA1/5

Filed 4/17/14 Ming v. Kappos CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

GEOFFREY E. WOO-MING, Plaintiff and Appellant, A138419 v. STEPHEN MARK KAPPOS et al., (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCV252559) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Geoffrey E. Woo-Ming, M.D. (plaintiff or appellant) appeals in propria persona from a judgment entered after the trial court granted defendants Stephen Mark Kappos’s and Creditor Trade Association’s (collectively, defendants) special motions to strike plaintiff’s abuse of process complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 Plaintiff contends the court erred by granting the motions. He has forfeited his contentions by failing to cite to the record in violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.204.2 Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff purchased advertising from The Fresno Bee (Bee) newspaper. Plaintiff did not pay for the advertising and the Bee assigned his delinquent account to the

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 All rule references are to the California Rules of Court.

1

Creditors Trade Association (CTA).3 The CTA, represented by attorney Kappos, sued plaintiff to collect the debt. Plaintiff did not respond to the complaint and the court entered a default judgment against him in the amount of $11,344.48. CTA attempted, unsuccessfully, to collect the judgment. The court denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the default judgment and later held plaintiff in contempt for violating a court order, sanctioned him $1,000, and issued a bench warrant for his arrest. Plaintiff sued defendants for abuse of process, alleging Kappos committed perjury by filing the lawsuit in the wrong county and that Kappos wrongfully obtained a writ of execution against him. Defendants moved to strike plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 425.16, contending their acts were privileged. Plaintiff opposed the motions and moved for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the court denied plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, granted defendants’ special motions to strike, and awarded defendants attorney fees and costs. DISCUSSION “Any statement in a brief concerning matters in the appellate record—whether factual or procedural and no matter where in the brief the reference to the record occurs—must be supported by a citation to the record.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2013) ¶ 9:36, p. 9-12 (Rutter), citing rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)).) Appellants acting in propria persona are held to the same standards as those represented by counsel. (See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Glair (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 813, 819.) Plaintiff’s opening and reply briefs do not comply with this rule. His briefs make “numerous references to purported evidence in the record, but fail[] to cite to the record as required by . . . rule 8.204(a)(1). . . . It is not the task of this court to search the record for evidence that supports the statements in an appellate brief; it is the responsibility of