gno.law

Caldwell v. Ecobaby Organics CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D064078 · 2014-06-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2009-00091247-CU-BT-CTL
Trial judge
Frederic L. Link
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
O'Rourke (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:40Z · confidence high

The trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of the defendant, Ecobaby Organics, Inc., and awarded $750,000, overturning the jury's verdict for the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that the pro se appellant forfeited his claims due to a deficient record and failure to cite legal authority or standards of review.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Grant of Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)
“Caldwell's deficient briefing, combined with the lack of reasoned analysis pertinent to the questions at hand on appeal from the court's order granting JNOV compel us to conclude he has forfeited any cognizable appellate contentions.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
agree with court
Allegation of Judicial Bias and Conflict of Interest
“On this record, we conclude that, absent specific evidence of wrongdoing, merely because a judge rules against a party in the course of the proceedings does not make the judge prejudiced against that party.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
agree with court

Authorities

  • relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — Judgments of the lower court are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown.
  • relied: Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400 — It is the appellant's burden to identify and establish deficiencies in the evidence.
  • relied: Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691 — Issues not supported by pertinent legal argument may be deemed abandoned.
  • relied: Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372 — Appellants must tailor arguments according to the substantial evidence standard when challenging JNOV.
  • relied: Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 — An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims or make arguments for parties.
  • relied: People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764 — The appellate court's role is to evaluate legal argument with citation of authorities.
  • relied: Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475 — It is the appellant's burden to present an adequate record to demonstrate trial court error.
  • relied: Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784 — Appellant must affirmatively demonstrate trial court error.
  • relied: Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281 — Appellant must present an adequate record to affirmatively demonstrate error.
  • relied: Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 — Courts cannot presume error from an incomplete record.
  • relied: Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412 — If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision should be affirmed.
  • relied: In re Guardianship of L.V. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 481 — Merely ruling against a party does not establish judicial prejudice absent specific evidence of wrongdoing.
  • relied: Haldane v. Haldane (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 393 — Ruling against a party does not constitute bias or prejudice.
  • relied: First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956 — Pro se litigants are held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as attorneys.
  • relied: Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117 — Pro se litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the principle that an appellant must provide an adequate record and legal argument to support claims of error. The court properly identified that the pro se appellant failed to cite the record or legal standards, leading to forfeiture of the claims.

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

After a jury returned a special verdict for plaintiff Michael Caldwell on his shareholder claims and against Ecobaby Organics' cross-claim, the trial court granted Ecobaby Organics judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered an amended judgment that, per Caldwell, awarded Ecobaby $750,000. The Court of Appeal affirmed without reaching the merits, holding that Caldwell's self-represented briefing (no record citations, no standard of review, no legal argument) and his inadequate record (no reporter's transcript, no pleadings) forfeited his contentions, and alternatively rejected his judicial-bias claim because adverse rulings alone do not show prejudice.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Order granting JNOV in favor of Ecobaby Organics and entering amended judgment contrary to the jury's special verdict
“Caldwell's deficient briefing, combined with the lack of reasoned analysis pertinent to the questions at hand on appeal from the court's order granting JNOV compel us to conclude he has forfeited any cognizable appellate contentions.”
substantial evidencenot reachedagree with court
The court correctly identified that review of a JNOV is for substantial evidence supporting the verdict and that the appellant must present an adequate record and reasoned argument (Denham, Huong Que, Gee, Christie). With no reporter's transcript, no pleadings, and no record citations, the court could not evaluate whether evidence supported the verdict, so affirmance by presumption of correctness follows settled law. The court did not, however, state the JNOV standard (trial court may not reweigh evidence or judge credibility), even though Caldwell's central complaint was that the judge granted JNOV because he 'didn't believe' him; this is a gap but not an error, since forfeiture independently supports the result.
Rejection of claim that the trial judge was biased or had a conflict of interest due to friendship with respondent's counsel's father
“On this record, we conclude that, absent specific evidence of wrongdoing, merely because a judge rules against a party in the course of the proceedings does not make the judge prejudiced against that party.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
The court's alternative holding rests on the settled rule, codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 170.2(b) and applied in Guardianship of L.V. and Haldane, that adverse rulings alone are not grounds for disqualification. Caldwell offered no record evidence of the alleged friendship or of any disqualification motion below, so the court could not find bias on this record. The reasoning and authorities support the conclusion.
Alleged due process violation from the judge stating he did not believe Caldwell's testimony when granting JNOV
“It is Caldwell's burden to present an adequate record so as to affirmatively demonstrate trial court error.”
unclearnot reachedagree with court
Without a reporter's transcript or statement of decision, there was no record of what the judge actually said or the basis for the JNOV, so the court properly treated this contention as forfeited and unreviewable under Maria P. v. Riles, Ermoian, and Christie. The result is defensible, though if the judge truly granted JNOV on a credibility determination that would be legal error under the JNOV standard, which the court did not discuss.

Authorities

  • relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A judgment is presumed correct; all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters where the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.
  • relied: Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400 — Appellate court presumes the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact; appellant bears the burden to identify deficiencies in the evidence.
  • relied: Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691 — An issue not supported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument may be deemed abandoned.
  • relied: Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113 — Failure to present reasoned legal argument on an issue constitutes abandonment of the issue on appeal.
  • relied: Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372 — An appellant must tailor arguments to the substantial evidence standard of review.
  • relied: Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 — An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims or make arguments for parties.
  • relied: People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764 — The appellate court's role is to evaluate legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made.
  • relied: Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475 — Appellant bears the burden of presenting an adequate record to affirmatively demonstrate trial court error.
  • relied: Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784 — Appellant must provide an adequate record demonstrating error.
  • relied: Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281 — Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against the appellant.
  • relied: Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407 — Error cannot be presumed from an incomplete record.
  • relied: Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412 — If the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the trial court's decision should be affirmed.
  • relied: Brewer v. Murphy (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 928 — Assertions of fact in an appellate brief must be supported by citation to the volume and page of the record.
  • relied: In re Guardianship of L.V. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 481 — A judge's adverse rulings against a party do not establish bias or prejudice.
  • relied: Haldane v. Haldane (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 393 — Rulings against a party, without more, do not demonstrate judicial prejudice.
  • relied: First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956 — A self-represented litigant is held to the same rules of procedure as an attorney and receives no greater consideration.
  • relied: Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117 — In propria persona litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants.
  • missed: Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62 — A trial court may grant JNOV only if no substantial evidence supports the verdict; it may not weigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The forfeiture and inadequate-record holdings are supported by settled authority, and the alternative rejection of the bias claim correctly applies section 170.2(b) and the cited cases. The opinion does not, however, articulate the JNOV standard (Sweatman; Hauter), even though the appellant's core grievance—that the judge overturned a unanimous jury verdict and awarded $750,000 because he 'didn't believe' the plaintiff—describes a credibility-based JNOV that would be legally improper if the record bore it out, and respondent filed no brief defending the ruling.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/18/14 Caldwell v. Ecobaby Organics 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

MICHAEL CALDWELL, D064078

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00091247- CU-BT-CTL) ECOBABY ORGANICS, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederic L.

Link, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael Caldwell, in pro. per.

Gaston & Gaston and Matthew J. Faust for Defendant and Respondent.

Michael Caldwell appeals a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) entered against him and in favor of respondent Ecobaby Organics, Inc. (Ecobaby Organics).

Caldwell contends: (1) the trial judge was biased and had a conflict of interest because of his friendship with the father of respondent's attorney; (2) the trial judge violated Caldwell's constitutional right to due process by stating, without supporting evidence, that he did not believe Caldwell's testimony, thus implying Caldwell had committed perjury; (3) there was no evidence to support the court's decision "to amend" the jury's verdict and award $750,000 to respondents. Ecobaby Organics has not filed a respondent's brief. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Caldwell's opening brief states: "Ms. Edmunds [Caldwell's former wife] was not complying with discovery in the family law case so as a shareholder of Ecobaby Organics, Inc., I requested information I was entitled to as a shareholder and allowed by law. Ecobaby Organics, Inc. failed to comply so I was forced to file this lawsuit. After this it was discovered that Ecobaby was indeed profitable. I had been providing hosting services for Ecobaby for years and under the terms of service I requested payment for services rendered. Ecobaby failed to make payment and failed to move their web site.

After numerous attempts to collect and according to the terms of service I shut down the web site at which point Ecobaby promptly moved their web site in less than 24 hours."

Caldwell summarizes the procedural history of this case as follows: "Michael Caldwell filed suit for production of documents as allowed by law for corporate shareholders. [¶] Mrs. Edmunds then filed a counter suit for breach of fiduciary duty for shutting down Ecobaby's web site for failure to pay, a totally unrelated matter. [¶]

Michael Caldwell prevailed at a jury trial on every count. Judge Link ruled against 2 Michael Caldwell on every county [sic] and in complete opposition to the jury verdict and awarded Ecobaby $750,000.00 because he 'didn't believe [Caldwell].' "

DISCUSSION

We begin with these basic appellate principles: " 'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) When the record is silent, we presume the trial court made the factual findings necessary to support its order. (Ibid.; Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409 [citing cases; appellate court starts with presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact].) "It is the appellant's burden, not the court's, to identify and establish deficiencies in the evidence." (Huong, at p. 409.)

Further, if an issue is not supported by pertinent or cognizable legal argument it may be deemed abandoned and there is no need for the reviewing court to discuss it.

(Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 699-700; Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1120.) Caldwell's opening brief contains no citation to the clerk's transcript, which at any rate lacks a copy of Caldwell's complaint or any other pleading. Rather, the only relevant documents in the clerk's transcript are Caldwell's trial brief; a minute order showing the court granted JNOV in favor of Ecobaby Organics; and a notice of entry of the court's amended judgment, with the jury's 3 special verdict form attached as an exhibit. Caldwell did not designate a reporter's transcript as part of the appellate record.1 Caldwell's brief is substantively deficient as well. He nowhere discusses the applicable standards of appellate review of an order granting JNOV. Because Caldwell does not acknowledge the relevant standards of review, he necessarily does not tailor his arguments according to the substantial evidence standard, as he must. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1388.) Nor does Caldwell provide any legal authority or legal argument demonstrating why we should conclude the trial court prejudicially erred in granting JNOV. (See Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 ["An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties."]; People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [appellate court's role is to evaluate legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made].) It is Caldwell's burden to present an adequate record so as to affirmatively demonstrate trial court error. (Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 494; Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794; see Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295.) "We cannot presume error from an incomplete record." (Christie v. Kimball (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1412.) " '[I]f the record is 1 California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) provides that each appellate brief must "[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears." Courts interpret this rule to mean that the assertions of fact set forth in an appellate brief must be supported by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where that fact appears. (See Brewer v. Murphy (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 928, 936, fn. 4 [defendants' assertion of fact not supported by citation to record].) Even setting aside these technical rule violations, the substance of Caldwell's briefing compels us to conclude any contentions are forfeited. 4 inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.' " (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)

Caldwell's deficient briefing, combined with the lack of reasoned analysis pertinent to the questions at hand on appeal from the court's order granting JNOV compel us to conclude he has forfeited any cognizable appellate contentions. As a result of these failings, and absent any persuasive legal authority on the question, Caldwell likewise has not demonstrated error or prejudice. Even if we reached the merits of one claim, we would reject Caldwell's contention the trial judge "showed his bias and prejudice by ruling against and in complete opposition to the jury on every count." On this record, we conclude that, absent specific evidence of wrongdoing, merely because a judge rules against a party in the course of the proceedings does not make the judge prejudiced against that party. (See In re Guardianship of L.V. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 481, 500;

Haldane v. Haldane (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 393, 395; Code Civ. Proc., § 170.2, subd.

(b).)

In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful that Caldwell represents himself on appeal. However, his status as a party appearing in propria persona does not provide a basis for preferential consideration. "A party proceeding in propria persona 'is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater[,] consideration than other litigants and attorneys.' [Citation.] Indeed, ' "the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney." ' " (First American Title 5 Co. v. Mirzaian (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1; Leslie v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O'ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus