Ingraham v. L.A. Police Dept. CA2/8

Opinion

Filed 8/27/26 Ingraham v. L.A. Police Dept. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MARK INGRAHAM, B349749

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 25STCP00742) v.

LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Curtis A. Kin, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Ingraham, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney, Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Assistant City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________________ INTRODUCTION Appellant Mark Ingraham appears to appeal from a denial of his motion to set aside dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (c). We find this matter appropriate for disposition by a memorandum opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum opinions].) In his appendix on appeal, Ingraham includes only the trial court’s order denying his motion to set aside or vacate dismissal, decided on September 18, 2025, his notice of appeal, and his notice designating records on appeal. In his notice of appeal, he writes that he is “appealing the decision of the judge made 9/18.” Therefore, we conclude he challenges the denial of the motion to set aside dismissal. In this context, “ ‘[a] ruling on a motion for discretionary relief under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 473 shall not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.’ ” (Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 257.) Here, Ingraham does not make this showing. Appellant’s opening brief reads in its entirety: “I. INTRODUCTION “Estop LAPD from arresting me. The majority of LAPD officers are illegal immigrants. “II. CONCLUSION “Petitioner petitions this court to: “1. Order LAPD to explain why they attempt to arrest me at 690 S Catalina St Apartment 4x.

2 “2. Estop LAPD and inform that any officers ignoring the estoppel will be killed by plaintiff.” (The formatting in this opinion reflects the brief’s own formatting.) As an initial matter, the trial court’s order is presumed correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) Thus, Ingraham must identify any prejudicial error to support a reversal, and he fails to do so. (Ibid.) First, the opening brief fails to cite to the trial court record at all. In this context, “ ‘[t]he appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error.’ ” (See Young v. California Fish and Game Commission (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1178, 1190–1191.) Consequently, “ ‘[i]f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the argument deemed to have been waived.’ ” (Ibid.) Second, appellant must support his appeal with cogent argument and citation to applicable authority, and his opening brief contains neither. (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1070.) Thus, Ingraham waived his contentions by providing no citations to the record and no cogent argument, and his appeal consequently fails.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying the motion to set aside or vacate the dismissal is affirmed. Respondent is awarded its costs on appeal.

VIRAMONTES, J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON, P. J.

WILEY, J.