Barefield v. Machuca-Cruz CA3

Filed 8/6/21 Barefield v. Machuca-Cruz CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

FINAS D. BAREFIELD JR., C091630

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201600196653CUPAGDS) v.

ADRIANA MACHUCA-CRUZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

This case arises out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff Finas D. Barefield Jr. appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found that defendant Adriana Machuca-Cruz was not negligent and defendant was not entitled to any award against her. On appeal, Barefield argues there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and that Machuca- Cruz was negligent. This claim fails because Barefield had the burden of proof and the evidence did not compel a finding in his favor as a matter of law. We will affirm the judgment.

1

I. DISCUSSION “It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate the existence of reversible error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 766.) “To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ ” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) As the reviewing court, we will not perform an independent, unassisted review of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522.) These rules apply to Barefield even though he is representing himself on appeal. (Id. at p. 523.) Barefield argues there was no evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and that Machuca-Cruz was negligent and thus responsible for the accident and Barefield’s subsequent damages. Where, as here, a plaintiff fails to prove his cause of action, the standard of review on appeal is not, as Barefield suggests, whether substantial evidence supports the judgment. (Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. County of Kern (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 828, 838.) “We generally apply the familiar substantial evidence test when the sufficiency of the evidence is at issue on appeal. Under this test, ‘ “we are bound by the established rules of appellate review that all factual matters will be viewed most favorably to the prevailing party [citations] and in support of the judgment. . . . ‘In brief, the appellate court ordinarily looks only at the evidence supporting the successful party, and disregards the contrary showing.’ [Citation.] All conflicts, therefore, must be resolved in favor of the respondent.” ’ [Citation.] “But this test is typically implicated when a defendant contends that the plaintiff succeeded at trial in spite of insufficient evidence. In the case where the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that the party with the burden of proof did not carry the burden and that party appeals, it is misleading to characterize the failure-of-proof issue as