record in search error in California

2026(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) We are not “ ‘required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.’ ” (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 .) Counsel must refer us to the portion of the record supporting its contentions on appeal, otherwise we may treat them as forfeited.

2021(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 (Guthrey) [“‘The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.’ [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s contentions on appeal. [Citation.] If no citation ‘is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived’”].) Yidan’s opening brief in this appeal includes a “statement of facts” that consists mostly of some procedural history, assertio

2023(McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523 [“‘The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. . . . [E]very brief should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made.

2020Generally, “‘[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. . . .’” (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522 .) Nonetheless, we briefly address this contention and find it unpersuasive.

2023Again, it is not our job to cull the record in search of error, it is Plaintiff’s job to affirmatively demonstrate error, (Okorie, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 600 ); we are “not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties,” (Paterno v. State of California, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 106 ); and “it is not this court’s function to serve as . . . backup appellate counsel,” (Mansell v. Board of Administration, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 546 ).

2022(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 ; Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 684.) Although we have no obligation to make an unassisted study of the record in search of error or to 8 make arguments for reversal for Howard (Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 ), we have reviewed the record and determined the judgment is correct.

2023(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 165, fn. 6 (United Grand Corp).) [we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt].) A reviewing court has no obligation to “develop appellants’ argument for them.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ; see also Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172 , 179–181; see Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 948 [“We are not required to

2022A party is required in his or her brief to “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), italics added; see Pizarro, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at 29 p. 179.) A reviewing court has no obligation to “develop appellants’ argument for them.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ; see Pizarro at p. 179 [an appellant forfeits his argument if “he did not sufficiently apprise the court of what argument he was trying to make”]; see Ellenberge

2022An appellate court has no obligation to “develop the appellants’ arguments for them.” (Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 .) As one court has explained, “We are not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to challenge a trial court’s action. . . .

2014(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 .) “Where any error is relied on for a reversal it is not sufficient for appellant to point to the error and rest there.” (Santina v. General Petroleum Corp. (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 74, 77 .) “It is not our responsibility to develop an appellant’s argument. [Citation.]” (Alvarez v. Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1206, fn. 11 ; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 ) [“We will not develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassi

2023(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 165, fn. 6 (United Grand Corp).) [we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt].) A reviewing court has no obligation to “develop appellants’ argument for them.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ; see also Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172 , 179–181; see Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 948 [“We are not required to

2022A party is required in his or her brief to “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), italics added; see Pizarro, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at 29 p. 179.) A reviewing court has no obligation to “develop appellants’ argument for them.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ; see Pizarro at p. 179 [an appellant forfeits his argument if “he did not sufficiently apprise the court of what argument he was trying to make”]; see Ellenberge

2022For example, Burlesque has not demonstrated the City has a clear duty to issue Burlesque a permit renewal or a variance or that Burlesque has a clear right to such acts. “ ‘As a general rule, “[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.” [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the 9 “Where . . . the plaintiff seeks a writ of mandate under . . . section 1085, ‘ “ ‘[i]f an administrative remedy is available and has not yet been exhausted, an adequa

2021The point is treated as waived and we pass it without further consideration.” (Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078 .) “ ‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as waived.’ ” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 .) Much of Manickam’s briefing does not satisfy these minimum standards.

2014Simply put, “[i]t is not our responsibility to develop an appellant’s argument.” (Alvarez v. Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1206, fn. 11 .) “‘The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.

2014(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 .) “Where any error is relied on for a reversal it is not sufficient for appellant to point to the error and rest there.” (Santina v. General Petroleum Corp. (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 74, 77 .) “It is not our responsibility to develop an appellant’s argument. [Citation.]” (Alvarez v. Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1206, fn. 11 ; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 ) [“We will not develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassi

2014(McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523 (McComber); Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 (Duarte) [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].) A reviewing court is not required to make an “‘independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error . . . .’ [Citation.]” ( McComber, supra, at pp. 522-523 .) If the party fails to provide both citation to legal authority and citation to the record in support of his or her contention, the reviewing court may treat the issue as waived.

2014(See, e.g., Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979 [reviewing court may disregard contentions unsupported by citation to authorities or to the record]; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [same]; Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 [same]; Ojavan Investors, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 373, 391 [same]; see also McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522 [“ ‘reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment’ ”].) Wi

2008It is entitled to the assistance of counsel." (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, p. 627.) Accordingly, where a party provides a brief "without argument, citation of authority or record reference establishing that the points were made below," we may "treat the points as waived, or meritless, and pass them without further consideration." ( Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 218, 228 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 712 ].) We nonetheless address Best's points to the extent possible. [6] Best contends that even if injunctive relief was unavailable because the C

2008It is entitled to the assistance of counsel." (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, p. 627.) Accordingly, where a party provides a brief "without argument, citation of authority or record reference establishing that the points were made below," we may "treat the points as waived, or meritless, and pass them without further consideration." ( Troensegaard v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 218, 228 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 712 ].) We nonetheless address Best's points to the extent possible. [6] Best contends that even if injunctive relief was unavailable because the C

2026The point is treated as waived and we pass it without further consideration.” (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078 .) We conclude the trial court properly overruled Asif’s objections to the relevant portions of Gorgone’s testimony.

2026(See Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1078 [“The court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error”]; Sharabianlou v. Karp (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1149 [“Counsel is obligated to refer us to the portions of the record supporting his or her contentions on appeal. . . .

2024We are “ ‘not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.’ ” (Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050 .) Where an appellant’s brief fails to contain cognizable legal argument with citation to supporting authorities, we may deem the appeal as abandoned, justifying dismissal.

2013(See Sprague v. Equifax, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1012, 1050 ["The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.

2022Forrester does not discuss this argument in his reply brief. “‘“The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error . . . .” [Citations.] It is the duty of [appellant] to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s contentions on appeal. [Citation.] If no citation “is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as waived.”’ [Citation.]” (Sakaguchi v. Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 862 ; citing Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 [“An appellant must a

2014“An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 .) “‘The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.’ [Citations.]” (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 , quoting 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, p. 627.) Where “an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support

2021Fletcher v. Western National Life Insurance Co. (1970 10 Cal. App. 3d 376 ; Hughes v Pair (2009) 46 Cal. 4th 1035 .” (Sic.) 6 contentions on appeal; and ‘ “we need not address contentions not properly briefed.” ’ (Winslett v. 1811 27th Avenue, LLC (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 239, 248, fn. 6 (Winslett).) “ ‘ “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.” ’ (Horowitz v. Noble (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 120, 139 (Horowitz); Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172, 181 (Pizarro) [‘It is not our responsibi

2015"Rather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has waived a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record. [Citations.] Similarly, we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt." (City of Santa Maria v. Adam, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 287 .) We conclude Yuan's briefing constitutes a forfeiture of appellate review. " 'The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassiste

2026(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [each brief on appeal must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”].) “‘As a general rule, “[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.” [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s contentions on appe

2026(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [each brief on appeal must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”].) “‘As a general rule, “[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.” [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s contentions on appe

2014(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 .) “Where any error is relied on for a reversal it is not sufficient for appellant to point to the error and rest there.” (Santina v. General Petroleum Corp. (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 74, 77 .) “It is not our responsibility to develop an appellant’s argument. [Citation.]” (Alvarez v. Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1206, fn. 11 ; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 ) [“We will not develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassi

2013(People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 .) “Where any error is relied on for a reversal it is not sufficient for appellant to point to the error and rest there.” (Santina v. General Petroleum Corp. (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d 74, 77 .) “It is not our responsibility to develop an appellant’s argument. [Citation.]” (Alvarez v. Jacmar Pacific Pizza Corp. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1190, 1206, fn. 11 ; Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1 ) [“We will not develop the appellants’ arguments for them”].) “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassi

2026(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [each brief on appeal must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”].) “‘As a general rule, “[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.” [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s contentions on appe

2026(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 153 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [each brief on appeal must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears”].) “‘As a general rule, “[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment.” [Citations.] It is the duty of counsel to refer the reviewing court to the portion of the record which supports appellant’s contentions on appe

2023(Petrolink, Inc. v. Lantel Enterprises (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 156 , 165.) An appellate court is “ ‘not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to challenge a trial court’s action’ ” (Yazdi v. Dental Board of California (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 25 , 36) or “ ‘consider alleged error where the appellant merely complains of it without pertinent argument.’ ” (Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Assn. v. City of Poway (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1460, 1480 ; see also Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [“When an appellant fails to ra

2015When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.'' (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 .) Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) of the California Rules of Court places the burden on appellants to "[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.'' Thus, '' '[t]he reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support

2023(United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 165, fn. 6 (United Grand Corp).) [we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to adopt].) A reviewing court has no obligation to “develop appellants’ argument for them.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ; see also Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172 , 179–181; see Ellenberger v. Espinosa (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 943, 948 [“We are not required to

2022A party is required in his or her brief to “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), italics added; see Pizarro, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at 29 p. 179.) A reviewing court has no obligation to “develop appellants’ argument for them.” (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830 ; see Pizarro at p. 179 [an appellant forfeits his argument if “he did not sufficiently apprise the court of what argument he was trying to make”]; see Ellenberge