Marriage of Cantarella and Herrera CA4/3

Filed 11/23/20 Marriage of Cantarella and Herrera CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of DAVID CANTARELLA and RUTH HERRERA.

DAVID CANTARELLA, G057197, G058304, G058332, Appellant, G058413, G058383, G058484

v. (Super. Ct. No. 16D006157)

RUTH HERRERA, OPINION

Respondent;

ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Intervener.

Appeals from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Claudia Silbar, Judge, and Nancy J. Kasch, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)Affirmed. David Cantarella, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Cheryl L. Feiner, Assistant Attorney General, Gregory D. Brown, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jennevee H. De Guzman, for Intervener.

Appellant David Cantarella (father), a vexatious litigant, appeals from orders regarding custody of and child support for his minor child (child) with respondent Ruth Herrera (mother). Father contends the trial court erred by (1) failing to file a stipulation and order, (2) refusing to allow father to cross-examine certain witnesses and admit certain evidence, (3) ordering a protective custody warrant for child, (4) allowing mother to take her request for order on modification of child support off calendar, (5) refusing to “modify” the motion of the Orange County Department of Child Support Services (SSA) to modify an existing child support order, (6) ordering father to pay costs associated with an attempt to have child visit a camp in Nebraska, and (7) ordering father to take child to school in Corona (where mother lives). He also requests an order assigning this case to a different judge on remand. We find no error and affirm. RULES VIOLATIONS AND DEFECTS IN FATHER’S BRIEF Father’s brief violates the California Rules of Court in several respects and is otherwise defective. Father’s brief exceeds the word count limit. California Rules of Court, rule 8.204 (c)(1) limits briefs to 14,000 words, but father’s certificate of word count indicates his brief contains 16,656 words. Father’s abbreviated summary of facts is insufficient to understand his claims, and the facts he chose to include are impermissibly one-sided. Because father argues insufficiency of the evidence (among other things) he was required to “‘summarize the evidence on that point, favorable and unfavorable, and show how and why it is insufficient. . . .” He cannot shift this burden onto respondent, nor is a reviewing court required to undertake an independent examination of the record when appellant has shirked his responsibility in this respect.’” (Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409, italics omitted.) Father’s initial statement of the case also does not correspond with his argument section, which made our review more difficult.