N.I. v. M.I. CA3

Filed 5/4/22 N.I. v. M.I. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

N.I.,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C093069

v. (Super. Ct. No. FL2017593)

M.I.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant M.I., appearing in propria persona as he did in the trial court, appeals from an order renewing a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued to protect his sister, respondent N.I., and others from appellant. Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support renewal of the DVRO. We will affirm the renewal order. BACKGROUND In July 2017, the trial court issued a DVRO protecting respondent, her minor children, and her parents from appellant (her brother). Respondent subsequently petitioned the trial court to renew that DVRO. Appellant opposed the petition. On October 21, 2020, the trial court heard argument on respondent’s petition. Both parties appeared in propria persona and both parties testified. Respondent’s husband testified on her behalf and numerous family members testified on behalf of appellant. A single exhibit was admitted into evidence.

1

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled: “the Court does find [respondent’s] testimony credible. I find much of what was testified on the [appellant’s] side . . . as not necessarily pertinent to the central question today. [¶] I will also note that what was testified to as -- on the [appellant’s] -- in the [appellant’s] case is contradicted by previous court rulings after taking -- after the taking of evidence, in fact, in this -- I’ll just say general matter. So based on that and based on the testimony I’ve heard and the documents submitted, I will renew the restraining order.” The trial court renewed the DVRO for five years, modifying the order to remove the parties’ mother, who passed away after issuance of the initial DVRO. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the trial court “did not substantiate [respondent’s] allegations to determine its truth or credibility[,]” and respondent “presented no witnesses or any evidence to support any of her allegations.” As we explain below, appellant has forfeited his claim on appeal. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment [or order] is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment [or order].” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) “This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim. The appellant must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557.) Accordingly, the California Rules of Court expressly require appellate briefs to “[s]tate each point . . . and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority” and to “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).)