Sharma v. Goswami CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D062749 · 2014-03-11 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. DV035329
Trial judge: Susan D. Huguenor
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: family
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), Judith D. McConnell, McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T02:56Z · confidence high

The trial court granted a five-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Abhishek Goswami, finding the petitioner more credible. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that Goswami forfeited his claims on appeal because he failed to provide necessary citations to the record in his brief.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Grant of five-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) “After hearing the testimony of Sharma and Goswami, the court granted a restraining order for a period of five years, finding Sharma to be the more credible witness.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's decision to grant the DVRO. Instead, it held that the appellant forfeited his claims by failing to cite the record, rendering the substantive ruling moot for purposes of this appeal.
Forfeiture of claims due to lack of record citations “Therefore, we conclude that Goswami has forfeited his claims on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court applied California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) and case law (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital) to determine that an appellant must support arguments with citations to the record. Since Goswami provided only three irrelevant or insufficient citations, the court correctly found his claims forfeited.

Authorities

relied: Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849 — If 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.
relied: Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 — A self-represented party on appeal is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys; pro per litigants must follow correct rules of procedure.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the procedural rule requiring record citations (Rule 8.204) and cites appropriate authority (Duarte) to support the forfeiture. It also correctly addresses the appellant's pro per status by citing Nwosu v. Uba to confirm that self-represented litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court, after hearing testimony from both parties and finding Shweta Sharma the more credible witness, granted a five-year domestic violence restraining order against Abhishek Goswami. On appeal, the Court of Appeal did not reach Goswami's challenges to the order (duration, separation and distance, lack of present danger, ineffective assistance of counsel) because his briefs lacked record citations, held the claims forfeited under rule 8.204, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Grant of a five-year domestic violence restraining order in favor of Sharma based on the trial court's credibility finding “After hearing the testimony of Sharma and Goswami, the court granted a restraining order for a period of five years, finding Sharma to be the more credible witness.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court never applied a merits standard of review; it treated all of Goswami's challenges (abuse of discretion in setting a five-year term, failure to weigh separation and distance, insufficient showing of present danger, and ineffective assistance of counsel) as forfeited because the statement of facts and arguments contained almost no record citations as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C). Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital and Nwosu v. Uba support treating uncited arguments as waived and holding self-represented litigants to the same procedural rules. On the facts recited (only three record citations, none supporting the disputed factual assertions), the forfeiture ruling is a recognized and defensible exercise of appellate discretion. The merits of the DVRO itself cannot be evaluated from this opinion.

Authorities

relied: Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849 — If 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 waived.
relied: Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 — A self-represented litigant is treated like any other party, entitled to the same but no greater consideration, and must follow correct rules of procedure.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly identified rule 8.204's record-citation requirement and applied settled authority permitting forfeiture of uncited arguments, including against self-represented parties, which fully disposes of the appeal. It did not separately note that an ineffective-assistance claim has no footing in a civil DVRO proceeding or exercise its discretion to reach the merits, but forfeiture was a complete and permissible ground for affirmance.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 3/11/14 Sharma v. Goswami CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SHWETA SHARMA, D062749

Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. DV035329)

ABHISHEK GOSWAMI,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Susan D.

Huguenor, Judge. Affirmed.

Abhishek Goswami, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

This appeal arises out of a five-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO)

the court granted in favor of plaintiff Shweta Sharma and against defendant Abhishek Goswami. On appeal, Goswami, acting in propria person, asserts (1) the court abused its discretion in granting a five-year DVRO, (2) the court did not take into account the length of time the parties had been separated and the geographical distance of the parties, (3) Sharma did not present facts necessary to demonstrate that an immediate and present danger of domestic violence existed, and (4) defense counsel's performance was ineffective by not allowing Goswami to present evidence beneficial to his defense. We conclude that Goswami has forfeited his claims on appeal because he has failed to support his arguments with citations to the record.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2012 Sharma filed her complaint seeking a DVRO. The complaint alleged that Goswami abused Sharma several times during a period from April through December 2011. Goswami responded by denying that any abuse had occurred.

In July 2012 the matter came on for trial. After hearing the testimony of Sharma and Goswami, the court granted a restraining order for a period of five years, finding Sharma to be the more credible witness.

DISCUSSION

California Rules of Court, rule 8.204, provides in part:

"(a) Contents [¶] (1) Each brief must: [¶] (A) Begin with a table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities cited; [¶] (B) State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority; and [¶] (C) Support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears." (Italics added.)

"If 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."

(Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.)

2 In his statements of facts, Goswami only provides three citations to the trial record. One citation merely states how long he has been living in the United States and the fact that for a time he lived in Illinois. The other two are to Sharma's DVRO petition, where he disputes her allegations of domestic violence, but again without any citation to the record. The remainder of Goswami's statement of facts, disputing the factual basis for Sharma's DVRO petition, is unsupported by any citation to the record. Therefore, we conclude that Goswami has forfeited his claims on appeal.

We are mindful that Goswami is acting in propria persona. However, a self- represented party on appeal "'is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. [Citation.]' [Citation.] Thus, as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure." (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NARES, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Nwosu v. Uba No. H026182 · 2004-10-01
Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital E020473 · 1999-06-03