Brown v. Safeway CA1/5

Filed 10/20/21 Brown v. Safeway 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ALICE BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, A161804 v. SAFEWAY, INC., (Del Norte County Super. Ct. No. CVPI-2019-1127) Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Alice Brown, acting in propria persona, sued Safeway, Inc. (Safeway) after its employee allegedly denied her a refund totaling $4.11, told other employees and customers that Brown lied, and called the police to falsely report her refusal to leave the store. Brown appeals from an order granting Safeway’s special motion to strike her intentional misrepresentation, defamation, and discrimination causes of action, pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).2

We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion 1 pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of 2 Civil Procedure.

1

Brown argues that the trial court erred by granting Safeway’s motion “while acknowledging this case as a mixed cause of action.” She cites Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376 and Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 as support for her argument. She does not explain how these authorities support her position, set forth the allegations of her operative complaint, attempt to identify any specific allegations and explain why they are not subject to being struck under the anti-SLAPP statute, or support her argument with citation to the record.

As an appellate court, we must presume the trial court’s order is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. (Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 443.) Here, Brown has not addressed the merits of her appeal in a meaningful way. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [reviewing courts may disregard points missing cogent legal argument]; Golden Drugs Co., Inc. v. Maxwell-Jolly (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1455, 1468.) She also has not identified the material facts or supported them with proper citation to the record. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [any reference to matters in record must be supported with citation to volume and page number]; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.)