Marriage of Mohamed and Ezzat CA2/1

Filed 8/24/23 Marriage of Mohamed and Ezzat CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re the Marriage of B321700 MAHA MOHAMED and TAREK E. EZZAT. (Los Angeles County __________________________________ Super. Ct. No. KD088302)

MAHA MOHAMED,

Appellant,

v.

TAREK E. EZZAT,

Respondent.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joshua D. Wayser, Judge. Dismissed. Maha Mohamed, in pro. per., for Appellant. Law Office of Brian C. Unitt and Brian C. Unitt for Respondent.

Appellant Maha Mohamed appeals from a judgment on reserved issues following the dissolution of her marriage to respondent Tarek E. Ezzat.1 Specifically, she challenges the portions of the judgment denying her spousal support and concluding she had no community property interest in a business and certain real property. Although it is not entirely clear from her briefing, Mohamed appears to argue that the trial court should not have considered her ability to work in assessing her entitlement to spousal support, that certain evidence considered by the court was forged, that certain testimony presented to the court was false, and that the court did not permit her to offer other evidence and testimony that would have proven these deficiencies. Mohamed’s opening brief does not cite any legal authority or make any citations to specific pages of the factual record. Because “the trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct,” “the appellant has the burden to prove otherwise by presenting legal authority on each point made and factual analysis, supported by appropriate citations to the material facts in the record; otherwise, the argument may be deemed forfeited.” (Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655.) A reviewing court “ ‘ “is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.” ’ ” (Lonely Maiden Productions, LLC v. GoldenTree Asset Management, LP (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 368, 384.) But Mohamed has not provided a record sufficient for us to undergo such an unassisted search, even assuming we were