Ortiz v. O'Hara CA2/8

Opinion

Filed 9/28/26 Ortiz v. O’Hara CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DAVID ORTIZ AND YUKO B345888 ORTIZ, Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 24STCV11706 v.

COLLEEN O’HARA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maureen Duffy-Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. David Ortiz and Yuko Ortiz in pro per. Colleen O’Hara in pro per. ____________________ David and Yuko Ortiz hired attorney Colleen O’Hara to represent them in a personal injury case after David was struck by a car while crossing the street. O’Hara eventually withdrew as their counsel. The Ortizes then sued O’Hara for attorney malpractice. The trial court sustained O’Hara’s demurrer and granted her motion to strike the Ortizes’ first amended complaint. Because the Ortizes did not provide a rule-compliant brief, we affirm. We refer to David and Yuko Ortiz by their first names where necessary to avoid confusion. A car hit David while he was crossing the street. The accident caused severe injuries and left David disabled with a traumatic brain injury. He lost his career in filmmaking. Yuko also gave up her career to become David’s caregiver. The Ortizes hired O’Hara to sue those responsible for the accident. After about four years of litigation, O’Hara withdrew as their counsel. The court later decided a summary judgment motion against the Ortizes. They have appealed that decision, and the case has yet to go to trial against the remaining parties. The Ortizes filed suit against O’Hara for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. O’Hara demurred. After a hearing split across two days, of which the Ortizes provided us the transcripts, the trial court sustained O’Hara’s demurrer, found the motion to strike moot, and gave the Ortizes leave to amend. After an extension, the Ortizes filed the first amended complaint. O’Hara again demurred and moved to strike. After another hearing, for which we do not have the transcript, the trial court again sustained the demurrer and granted the motion to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety. The minute order reflects these rulings but nothing about the court’s reasoning. The trial court entered judgment against the Ortizes. The Ortizes appealed this judgment. In their opening brief, the Ortizes discuss only what happened at the hearing on the first demurrer, at which the court granted leave to amend.

2 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.; Cal. Rule of Court 8.204(a)(1)(B)&(C).) These rules apply regardless of whether the appellants appear in pro per. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) The Ortizes’ opening brief meets none of these requirements. It discusses only an irrelevant proceeding. Thus, the few cites to authority and the record included cannot support cogent argument or accurate record references. We further note that such omissions are particularly problematic where we are given a record that is over 5,000 pages long. (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 287 [the longer and more complex the record, the more important to adhere to the rules].) It is neither the court’s job, nor a burden the court can undertake on behalf of one side, to review such a record to find support for a party’s arguments. After O’Hara’s brief pointed out this mistake, the Ortizes attempted to rectify their error by including argument about the correct proceeding and citations to the record in their reply brief. But this is too little too late. (REO Broadcasting Consultants v. Martin (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 489, 500 [we need not consider points raised for the first time in a reply brief].) We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs when doing so would unfairly prejudice the other side. (People v. Silveria & Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 255 [arguments made for 3 the first time in a reply brief will not be entertained because of unfairness to the other party].) While the Ortizes make relevant arguments in support of the sufficiency of their complaint, they denied O’Hara the opportunity to respond to any of these arguments because none of them were raised in the opening brief. We understand the challenges the Ortizes face in representing themselves, but we cannot allow leniency to one party to prejudice the other. (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52 [rule based on considerations of fairness].) The Ortizes’ failure to comply with the rules regarding opening briefs precluded O’Hara from a fair opportunity to respond to their arguments. We therefore decline to consider them. We further note that, even if we were to consider the Ortizes’ arguments about why the demurrer should not have been sustained and they should have a further chance to amend, it would not end the matter. The trial court granted O’Hara’s motion to strike. Even in their reply brief, the Ortizes make no argument about why that decision was in error. DISPOSITION We affirm the order. Each side to bear their own costs.

WILEY, ACTING P. J.

We concur:

VIRAMONTES, J. SCHERB, J.