Allen v. Allen CA1/1

Filed 3/10/23 Allen v. Allen CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

ERIC ALLEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, A159554

v. (Contra Costa County DARINKA ALLEN, Super. Ct. No. MSD1501381) Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Eric Allen appeals from a “Judgment on reserved issues” that incorporates an “ ‘Order Attachment to Judgment on Reserved Issues.’ ” He has attempted to challenge rulings and orders set forth in the judgment and order concerning ownership of a parcel of real property, ownership of a business, and breaches of fiduciary duty. However, Allen has failed to provide an adequate record and, more significantly, has not provided record citations in either of the two arguments he advances in his opening brief.1 He has therefore forfeited these arguments, and we affirm.2

1 No respondent’s brief, and therefore no closing brief, were filed. Although Allen is proceeding in propria persona, he is held to the 2

same standard of compliance with the controlling law, both procedural and substantive, as a licensed attorney. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)

1

The Record In his notice of appeal, Allen identified the judgment from which he has appealed as a “Judgment after court trial.” In his civil case information statement, Allen more specifically identified the judgment from which he has appealed as the trial court’s judgment entered on January 15, 2020 and attached a copy thereof. The judgment specifies that it is a “Judgment on reserved issues” and that jurisdiction “is reserved over all other issues.” The judgment makes orders on “Property division,” “Attorney fees and costs,” and “Other” matters as set forth in an “ ‘Order Attachment to Judgment on Reserved Issues.’ ” That order, in turn, states the court issued a “Proposed Statement of Decision” on December 10, 2019, as to which no objections were made and which thereby became the court’s “Statement of Decision.” The order further states that “[a]ll [o]rders” set forth “are made pursuant to the Court’s Statement of Decision, filed December 10, 2019.” While it appears Allen may have attempted to designate the court’s statement of decision for inclusion in the clerk’s transcript, he, in fact, did not do so. On page 2 of his designation, next to a line item stating “(6) Ruling on one or more of the items listed in (5),” he listed as the filing date “12/10/2019.” Paragraph (5), however, lists the following items: “Notice of intention to move for new trial or motion to vacate the judgment, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for reconsideration of an appealed order.” Allen did not file, and therefore there are no rulings on, any of the items in paragraph (5). As the appellant, Allen not only had the responsibility of correctly designating the record he desired—and a record adequate for appellate review—he also had the responsibility of reviewing the record once it was prepared and requesting correction of any deficiency. “[I]t is a fundamental