Fortson v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. CA2/2

Filed 9/1/15 Fortson v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

SYLVIA FORTSON, B248006

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC487400) v.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Barbara Ann Meiers, Judge. Affirmed.

Sylvia Fortson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Alexander Molina and Charlie L. Hill for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________

Plaintiff and appellant Sylvia Fortson (Fortson) appeals the judgment entered following the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer brought to her complaint by defendants and respondents Los Angeles Unified School District and Ken Martinez (defendants). For both procedural and substantive reasons, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 29, 2012, Fortson filed a wrongful termination complaint against defendants. Defendants demurred, arguing that, inter alia, Fortson failed to allege statutory liability and Fortson failed to allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). It seems that Fortson filed an opposition to the demurrer, although it is not part of the appellate record. Defendants responded to her opposition with a reply. After entertaining oral argument, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds that Fortson admitted that she never filed a claim as required by the Tort Claims Act and FEHA. On its own motion, the trial court set a hearing under Code of Civil Procedure section 438 to “consider a judgment on the pleadings as to the rest of the case.” When it received no opposition from Fortson, a judgment on the pleadings was rendered in favor of defendants. Judgment was entered, and this timely appeal ensued. DISCUSSION In addressing an appeal, we begin with the presumption that a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct, and reversible error must be affirmatively shown. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) The appellant must “present argument and authority on each point made” (County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)) and cite to the record to direct the reviewing court to the pertinent evidence or other matters in the record that demonstrate reversible error (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115). It is not our responsibility to comb the appellate record for facts, or to conduct legal research in search of authority, to support the contentions on appeal. (Del Real v.