appellant to affirmatively demonstrate error in California

2021(Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 .) “On appeal, all intendments weigh in favor of the regularity of the trial court proceedings and the correctness of the judgment.

2020(Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 .) An appellant’s brief must “[p]rovide a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)), and support each reference to a matter in the record by citation to the page of the record on which it appears (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)).

2026(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 .) This burden includes several components.

2021(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609 [“[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment”].) The burden placed on an appellant to affirmatively demonstrate error is “ ‘not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Ibid.) The Douglases have not met

2016(Cf. Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 ; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) "When an appellant's brief makes no reference to the pages of the record where a point can be found, an appellate court need not search through the record in an effort to discover the point purportedly made." (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406 .) Because Ingrande's appellate brief does not identify 43 "An employee alleging age discrimination must ultimately prove that the adverse employment action taken was based on his or her age.

2016(Cf. Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 799-800 ; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) "When an appellant's brief makes no reference to the pages of the record where a point can be found, an appellate court need not search through the record in an effort to discover the point purportedly made." (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406 .) Because Ingrande's appellate brief does not identify 43 "An employee alleging age discrimination must ultimately prove that the adverse employment action taken was based on his or her age.

2024(Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. (1973) 9 Cal.3d 51, 70 .) Thus, the absence of a respondent’s brief does “not absolve us of adjudicating the merits of” the LLC’s appeal.

2024(Westfour Corp. v. California First Bank (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1558 ; ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266 .) 20 Under fundamental principles of appellate review, we must presume the judgment is correct, indulge all intendments in favor of the judgment, and require Onni as the appellant to affirmatively demonstrate error.

2024(Westfour Corp. v. California First Bank (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1558 ; ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266 .) 20 Under fundamental principles of appellate review, we must presume the judgment is correct, indulge all intendments in favor of the judgment, and require Onni as the appellant to affirmatively demonstrate error.

2024(Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“A violation of the rules of court may result in . . . the waiver of the arguments made therein, the imposition of fines and/or the dismissal of the appeal”].) Nonetheless, we address those arguments on their merits. 5 favorable to the prevailing party, are binding on a reviewing court.” (Baldwin v. Baldwin (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 175, 177 .) We note that although the Estate did not file a respondent’s brief, the burden still rests on the LLC as the appellant to affirmatively demonstrate error by the trial court.

2021(Shuster v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 505, 512, fn. 4 .) Plaintiff did not object to judicial notice in the trial court, and we deem any objection forfeited. 5. legal theory. ( Aubry, supra, at p. 967 .) “ ‘We do not review the reasons for the trial court’s ruling; if it is correct on any theory, even one not mentioned by the court, and even if the court made its ruling for the wrong reason, it will be affirmed.’ ” (Curcini v. County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 629, 637 .) On appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and the burden is on the appellant to affirmat

2021(Shuster v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 505, 512, fn. 4 .) Plaintiff did not object to judicial notice in the trial court, and we deem any objection forfeited. 5. legal theory. ( Aubry, supra, at p. 967 .) “ ‘We do not review the reasons for the trial court’s ruling; if it is correct on any theory, even one not mentioned by the court, and even if the court made its ruling for the wrong reason, it will be affirmed.’ ” (Curcini v. County of Alameda (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 629, 637 .) On appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and the burden is on the appellant to affirmat

2020Analysis The People assert that defendant forfeited this contention on the ground that it is the burden of the appellant to affirmatively demonstrate error (People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 378 ), and defendant failed to provide a record on appeal sufficient to establish whether he was properly advised pursuant to Miranda before making his 2011 64 booking statement.23 The People also assert that defendant’s contention was forfeited in the trial court because no objection was offered on the ground that the use of his 2011 booking statement violated Miranda.

2016(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) More significant in this case is the rule that “an appellate court reviews the action of the lower court and not the reasons given for its action; and . . . there can be no prejudicial error from erroneous logic or reasoning if the decision itself is correct.” (Estate of Beard (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 753, 776 (Beard), italics omitted.) Thus, we will affirm an order if it is correct on any theory applicable to the case, even if the trial court fails to clearly specify a proper basis for its decision.

2016Proc., § 657, subd. (2).) “[A] trial judge is accorded a wide discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial and … the exercise of this discretion is given great deference on appeal.” (Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860 , 871–872.) On appeal, the judgment or order is presumed correct and the burden is on the appellant to affirmatively demonstrate error.

2013(In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 823 .) Because the trial court continued the hearing to allow the prosecutor to research the hearsay issue, we presume the trial court was open to reconsidering its ruling that allowed in evidence the probation officer’s hearsay testimony concerning her phone conversations with B.N.’s mother.