Marriage of Schuck and Emert CA4/1

Filed 1/30/24 Marriage of Schuck and Emert 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ANDREA L. SCHUCK and ROBERT EMERT. D079955 ANDREA L. SCHUCK,

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FL010852N

v.

ROBERT EMERT,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patti Ratekin, Commissioner and Lorna Alknse, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Emert, in pro. per., for Appellant. Law Office of Linda Cianciolo and Linda Cianciolo for Respondent. Self-represented litigant Robert Emert (Robert) appeals a family court judgment entered against him by a family court commissioner, Patti Ratekin, arguing it is “void” or “required to be set aside and or vacated due to [Commissioner Ratekin’s] egregious violations of state and federal laws/rules that govern our courts basic due process, basic service, and ethical conduct”

and also because “she entered the judgments [sic] after she recused . . . .”1 Robert also appeals from rulings by Judge Lorna Alknse, who he claims, “kept me, my evidence, my witnesses and my [American Disability Act] coordinators out of my own trial even though I simply requested a continuance and or remote hearings due to a heart attack.” Finally, he claims, with no citation to the record, that Judge Alana Robinson refused to hear his challenge to Commissioner Ratekin’s rulings. Respondent Andrea L. Schuck (formerly Emert (Andrea)) points out Robert has failed to cite to the record and provide cogent arguments or sound legal analysis and therefore has not presented sufficient grounds for reversal. We agree and affirm. DISCUSSION “Every brief must support 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)(C).) . . . If a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, the argument will be deemed waived.” (LA Investments, LLC v. Spix (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1061; accord, In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) Further, it is an appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record establishing error. (Parker v. Harbert (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1178.)