California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 2015 No. E058787Unpublished
Filed 3/20/15 Marriage of Watkins CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re the Marriage of LUCINDA M. and MICHAEL D. WATKINS.
LUCINDA M. WATKINS, E058787 Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. FAMVS701909) v. OPINION MICHAEL D. WATKINS,
Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Alexander R.
Martinez, Judge. Dismissed.
Michael David Watkins, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
1
I
INTRODUCTION
Lucinda M. Watkins and Michael D. Watkins1 are the petitioner and respondent in
a family law case first filed in 2007. They have one child, a son, born in 2005. An
amended judgment was entered on April 16, 2012.
Michael is seeking visitation rights with his son, an issue which Michael asserts
should be the subject of federal jurisdiction as part of a patent law case in the federal
district or appellate courts in Tennessee or Florida. Michael, representing himself, has
appealed from an order, or orders, made by the family law court on May 13, 2013.
Lucinda has not filed an appellate brief. Based on our review of the record, we conclude
Cal.App.3d 866, 873.) Michael “simply failed to make any arguments to support any
theory of error.” (Berger, at p. 1120.)
A postjudgment order regarding child custody and visitation is appealable.
(Enrique M. v. Angelina V. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1377-1378.) The California
6
court has not made a postjudgment order about visitation. As of June 2013, the visitation
issue was apparently pending in an Oregon court.
IV
DISPOSITION
Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, we dismiss. Appellant shall
bear his own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the order appealed from was a non-appealable order denying a motion for reconsideration and the appellant failed to provide any coherent or intelligible legal argument.
Issues
Whether an order denying a motion for reconsideration is appealable.
Whether the appellant provided sufficient legal argument to support the appeal.
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“an order denying a Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 motion for reconsideration is not separately appealable.”
“failure of an appellant in a civil action to articulate any pertinent or intelligible legal argument in an opening brief may, in the discretion of the court, be deemed an abandonment of the appeal justifying dismissal.”
“Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, we dismiss.”