Quiggle v. Franke CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D063707 · 2014-03-20 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from orders
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2010-00095142-CU-HR-CTL
Trial judge: Laura J. Birkmeyer
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: civil
Panel: Gilbert Nares (author), O'Rourke, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:43Z · confidence high

The trial court granted a civil harassment restraining order to the plaintiff but denied her subsequent petition to hold the defendant in contempt, finding she failed to meet her burden of proof. The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders, holding that the plaintiff forfeited her arguments by failing to cite legal authority and that the appellate court could not reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition to hold defendant in contempt “Having considered all evidence and [assessing] the credibility of the parties, [t]he Court finds [Quiggle] has not met her burden of proof and does not hold [Franke] in contempt.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the trial court's decision on the merits because it first determined that the appellant had forfeited her claims by failing to provide citations to legal authority in her opening brief. Consequently, the court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as abuse of discretion) to the contempt ruling itself, but rather dismissed the issue as waived.
Appellant's challenge to the trial court's credibility determination “we may not reweigh the court's credibility determinations”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court stated that it would not reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations, citing the principle that appellate courts defer to the trial court's assessment of witness demeanor. However, this analysis was presented as a secondary ground after the primary holding of forfeiture, and the court did not explicitly apply the abuse of discretion standard to the specific facts of the contempt hearing.

Authorities

relied: In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814 — Appellants must provide citations to legal authority and argument, or the court may deem the claim waived.
relied: Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857 — Points asserted without reasoned argument and citations to authority are treated as waived.
relied: Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113 — Pro per litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than attorneys.
relied: Escober v. Flores (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 737 — Appellate courts defer to a judge's resolution of credibility issues because they observe witness demeanor.
relied: Maslow v. Maslow (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 237 — Appellate courts do not reweigh credibility determinations made by the trial court.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the waiver rule for failure to cite authority, which is a well-established principle in California appellate practice. The secondary discussion on credibility deference is also legally accurate, though it was rendered moot by the primary waiver holding.

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 trial court granted Ellyn Quiggle a civil harassment restraining order against Steven Franke (but not as to her daughter) and later denied her order to show cause re contempt, finding after hearing testimony and reviewing a 911 recording and police report that she had not met her burden of proof. The Court of Appeal affirmed both orders, holding that Quiggle forfeited her claims by failing to cite legal authority in her brief and that, in any event, the appellate court could not reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Grant of civil harassment restraining order as to Quiggle only, without extending it 'in perpetuity' or to her daughter Gabryelle “We conclude that Quiggle has forfeited her claims because she has provided no citations to authority in support of her contentions.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The court applied the settled forfeiture rule for briefs lacking citation to authority (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Falcone & Fyke; Nelson), and correctly held a self-represented litigant to the same standard under Bianco. The opinion does not reveal when the 2010 restraining order was entered relative to the notice of appeal, so a timeliness question may lurk, but the forfeiture disposition is well supported on this record.
Denial of order to show cause re contempt for failure to meet burden of proof after assessing credibility of the parties “However, on appeal, we do not reweigh a court's credibility determinations.”	substantial evidence	correct	agree with court Deference to the trial court's credibility findings is correct under Escober and Maslow, and Quiggle's only argument was that Franke lied. The court did not, however, address whether an order denying contempt is appealable at all; under Code of Civil Procedure section 1222 and John Breuner Co. v. Bryant, contempt orders are final and reviewable only by writ, so the proper disposition arguably was dismissal of that portion of the appeal rather than affirmance. The result (no relief for appellant) is the same.

Authorities

relied: In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814 — An appellate court is not bound to develop appellants' arguments for them; unsupported claims may be deemed waived.
relied: Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857 — When an appellant fails to support a point with reasoned argument and citations to authority, the point is treated as waived.
relied: Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113 — A litigant appearing in propria persona is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.
relied: Escober v. Flores (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 737 — Appellate courts defer to the trier of fact's resolution of credibility because it observed witness demeanor.
relied: Maslow v. Maslow (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 237 — Credibility determinations are for the trial court and are not reweighed on appeal.
missed: John Breuner Co. v. Bryant (1951) 36 Cal.2d 877 — An order refusing to adjudge a party in contempt is not appealable; contempt rulings are final and conclusive under Code of Civil Procedure section 1222 and reviewable only by extraordinary writ.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The forfeiture and credibility-deference holdings are correctly stated and supported by apposite authority, and the result is defensible given the appellant's unsupported brief. The court skipped the threshold question of whether an order denying contempt is appealable at all (Code Civ. Proc., § 1222; John Breuner Co. v. Bryant) and did not address the timeliness of any challenge to the 2010 restraining order, either of which would have called for dismissal rather than affirmance of that portion of the appeal.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 3/20/14 Quiggle v. Franke 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

ELLYN QUIGGLE, D063707

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00095142- CU-HR-CTL) STEVEN BERT FRANKE, Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J.

Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.

Ellyn Quiggle, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

This appeal arises out of an order granting plaintiff Ellyn Quiggle a civil restraining order to prevent harassment by defendant Steven Bert Franke, and a subsequent order denying her request to find Franke in contempt of that order. Although her brief is unclear it appears that Quiggle is asserting the court erred in not extending the restraining order "in perpetuity" and not extending the protection of that order to her daughter, Gabryelle. Quiggle also asserts that Franke's testimony at the contempt hearing was not credible. We conclude that Quiggle has forfeited her claims because she has provided no citations to authority in support of her contentions. We further conclude that we may not reweigh the court's credibility determinations.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2010 Quiggle filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Franke, alleging that he sent her "numerous harassing emails and text messages."

She also requested that her daughter be protected because she was "fearful that he will harass my teenage daughter in an attempt to intimidate me." The court granted the restraining order as to Quiggle, but not as to her daughter.

Quiggle thereafter filed an order to show cause (OSC) and affidavit for contempt, alleging that Franke continued to harass her by following and chasing her in his car. As part of that OSC, Quiggle filed a police report detailing the alleged incident. She also filed a CD of the police recording of her 911 call that she made during the alleged incident.

The matter thereafter came on for hearing and the court heard the testimony of Quiggle and Franke. The court played the CD and reviewed the police report. Following that hearing the court denied Quiggle's petition, stating: "Having considered all evidence and [assessing] the credibility of the parties, [t]he Court finds [Quiggle] has not met her burden of proof and does not hold [Franke] in contempt."

2 DISCUSSION

I. WAIVER

In her opening brief Quiggle does not support her claims of error with citations to pertinent legal authority as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).

An appellant must provide citations to legal authority and argument in support of a claim of error, or a court may deem the claim waived, because the court is "not bound to develop appellants' arguments for them." (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830.) " 'When 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.' " (Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862.)

The rules are equally applicable to Quiggle. " 'When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he [or she] is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' " (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125.)

We therefore conclude Quiggle has forfeited the issues raised on appeal. Further, addressing Quiggle's appeal on the merits, we conclude that we may not reweigh the credibility determinations made by the trial court.

II. MERITS

In the argument section of her opening brief, Quiggle attacks the credibility of Franke, asserting that in his testimony at the contempt hearing he lied about the events that gave rise to her filing the OSC re contempt.

3 However, on appeal, we do not reweigh a court's credibility determinations.

Appellate courts defer to a judge or jury's resolution of such factual issues because they have had the benefit of observing the demeanor of witnesses and are therefore in a better position to assess credibility. (Escober v. Flores (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 737, 752;

Maslow v. Maslow (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 237, 243.)

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Escobar v. Flores C061316 · 2010-04-07
Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. E044045 · 2009-02-27
In Re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke H031524 · 2008-07-08
Bianco v. California Highway Patrol D019372 · 1994-05-03
Maslow v. Maslow Civ. 19413 · 1953-04-09