France v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power CA2/8

Opinion

Filed 7/31/26 France v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

JEANETTE FRANCE, B349309

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC719459 v.

LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Shultz, Judge. Affirmed. Jeanette France in pro per. Hydee Feldstein Soto, Los Angeles City Attorney, Valerie L. Flores, Los Angeles Interim General Counsel, Jennifer M. Gregg, Los Angeles Assistant City Attorney, and Heather E. Jones, Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________ The trial court granted summary judgment against Jeanette France in December 2019. In 2025, the trial court denied a motion to vacate that judgment for lack of jurisdiction. France appeals this order. We affirm. We presume the trial court’s ruling is correct. (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) An appellant bears the affirmative burden of demonstrating prejudicial error. (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1070.) Appellants must support their assertions with cogent argument with citation to authority and accurate citations to the record. (Ibid.) These rules apply regardless of whether the appellant appears in pro per. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) France does not meet this standard. France’s briefs contain no cites to the record. (Cal. Rule of Court 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Moreover, her arguments do not specify an error the trial court made with respect to the 2025 order. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.) France’s arguments instead focus on why the trial court’s 2019 summary judgment decision was incorrect. To the extent she meant to appeal that order, we are without jurisdiction: that decision is over six years old. (Cal. Rule of Court 8.104(a)(l); Ricketts v. McCormack (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1336–1337.) Because France has not met her burden to show error in any order we have jurisdiction to consider, we affirm. DISPOSITION We affirm the order and award costs to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. We deny France’s motion to augment as not relevant to our decision.

WILEY, ACTING P. J.

We concur:

VIRAMONTES, J.

SCHERB, J.