Ritchie-Franklin v. Larson CA4/2 (2024) · DecisionDepot
Ritchie-Franklin v. Larson CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jun 6, 2024 No. E079023Unpublished
Filed 6/6/24 Ritchie-Franklin v. Larson CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
JERRIANNE RITCHIE-FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E079023
v. (Super.Ct.No. MCC1800962)
BENJAMIN THAYNE LARSON, OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Angel M. Bermudez,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jerrianne Ritchie-Franklin, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Schmid & Voiles, Kyle A. Cruse, and Denise H. Greer, for Defendant and
Respondent.
1
Plaintiff Jerrianne Ritchie-Franklin appeals from an order setting aside the default
and default judgment entered against defendant Benjamin Larson. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ritchie-Franklin is representing herself on appeal. The record on appeal does not
include any pleadings, plaintiff’s request for entry of default, or the default judgment
entered against Larson. Our summary of the factual and procedural history is drawn from
Finally, Ritchie-Franklin argues that she “made it clear” that she wanted to present
oral argument by filing an opposition to the motion to set aside. Ritchie-Franklin did not
request oral argument in her opposition, and she does not explain why the mere filing of
an opposition operated as a request for oral argument. More broadly, she does not
explain how her conduct complied (or substantially complied) with the trial court’s
procedures for requesting oral argument, and she does not argue that those procedures
were unduly onerous. Again, because the argument is not supported by any legal analysis
7
or citation to authority, we consider it forfeited. (United Grand, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at
p. 146.)
For all of the foregoing reasons, we must affirm the order setting aside the default
and default judgment. The order was correct under section 473.5, and Ritchie-Franklin
has not carried her burden of showing prejudicial error.
DISPOSITION
The order setting aside the default and default judgment is affirmed. Larson shall
recover his costs of appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order setting aside a default and default judgment, holding that the relief was proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5 because the defendant lacked actual notice of the litigation.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside the default and default judgment.
Whether the appellant met the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error on an inadequate record.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The order setting aside the default and default judgment is correct under section 473.5.”
“The trial court found that Larson had not received notice of the lawsuit, and that finding is supported by substantial evidence”
“The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error and providing an adequate record on appeal.”