Marriage of Mojtahedzadeh v. Farshi CA4/1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Marriage of Mojtahedzadeh v. Farshi CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Apr 15, 2013 No. D061426Unpublished
Filed 4/15/13 Marriage of Mojtahedzadeh v. Farshi CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re the Marriage of SEPIDEH MOJTAHEDZADEH and ESMAEIL FARSHI. D061426 SEPIDEH MOJTAHEDZADEH,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. D528075)
v.
ESMAEIL FARSHI,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lorna A.
Alksne, Judge. Dismissed.
Defendant and appellant Esmaeil Farshi (Father) appeals the judgment of the family
court in the dissolution action between Father and his former wife, plaintiff and respondent
Sepideh Mojtahedzadeh (Mother), with respect to its child custody and visitation
determinations. The court awarded Mother full custody of their two minor children, and
denied Father any visitation rights. (Fam. Code, § 3040 et seq.; all further statutory
references are to this code unless noted.)
Mother's brief defends the custody order and judgment, relying in part on records in
the same family court file from previous litigation about Mother's request for a
prejudgment order in this case, a 2011 domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). That
DVRO was affirmed as modified by this court in January 2013. (Mojtahedzadeh v. Farshi
issues requiring a factual analysis," as there is no way to verify the facts asserted.].)
Since we are not responsible for combing the appellate record for pertinent evidence, or
conducting legal research in search of authority to support the contentions on appeal (Del
6
Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768), we could additionally consider
Father's claims to be waived. (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th
539, 545-546.)
C. Evaluation of Appeal
Since Father has been unable to correct his defective brief, there is ample authority
for us to dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with applicable appellate procedure. As
the Supreme Court has explained in Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529,
544, footnote 8, " 'A "reviewing court has inherent power, on motion or its own motion,
to dismiss an appeal which it cannot or should not hear and determine." [Citation.] An
appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant
must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other
defect [citation], and "present argument and authority on each point made." [citations].
If he does not, he may, in the court's discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal.
[Citation.] In that event, it may order dismissal.' " (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th
952, 994.)
In the current appeal, we are unable to discern what error or other defect is
claimed against the custody order, and we therefore have " 'no reason to proceed to the
merits of any unraised " ' "points" ' "—and, a fortiori, no reason to reverse or even modify
the orders in question.' " (Conservatorship of Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 8.)
Further, and as we said before, Father has made no factual or legal showing to
support his serious allegations of corruption or other misfeasance at the family court
proceedings, or any voidness of the judgment. Instead, the order text and the record show
7
the judge complied with statutory procedures and due process requirements,
conscientiously addressing the contested custody issues.
The result of a dismissal of an appeal is to leave the underlying judgment in place,
effectively affirming it. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 913, when an appeal is
dismissed, it is "with prejudice to the right to file another appeal within the time
permitted, unless the dismissal is expressly made without prejudice to another appeal."
Neither of the exceptions applies here (premature appeal or appeal that was taken from a
void judgment or order). Thus, our dismissal of this appeal validates the judgment and its
custody and visitation orders. (See Sullivan v. Gage (1905) 145 Cal. 759, 770-771; 9
Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Appeal, § 762, p. 835.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
MCINTYRE, J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with appellate procedural rules, including the failure to provide an adequate record or cogent legal arguments.
Issues
Whether the appellant's failure to comply with appellate rules regarding briefs and record designation warrants dismissal.
Whether the appellant met the burden of demonstrating reversible error in the family court's custody and visitation order.
Disposition. Dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Father's appeal must be dismissed due to its extreme degree of noncompliance with appellate court rules, making it unduly difficult or impossible for this court to analyze any purported challenges to the judgment.”