gno.law

Kelly v. Matlock CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D068639 · 2016-05-13 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. CIVDS1310397
Trial judge
Pamela Preston King
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Alex C. McDonald (author), Patricia D. Benke, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:50Z · confidence high

The trial court granted terminating sanctions against the defendant, setting aside his answer and allowing the plaintiff to proceed to default judgment after the defendant failed to comply with a discovery order. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding that the defendant's defective appellate brief waived all arguments and failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Order granting terminating sanctions (setting aside answer and permitting default judgment)
“The court entered an order granting terminating sanctions and ordered Matlock's answer be set aside and granted Kelly the right to proceed with default judgment proceedings.”
abuse of discretioncorrectagree with court
The appellate court affirmed the ruling because the appellant failed to meet the burden of showing an abuse of discretion, as his brief did not address the sanctions issue or provide meaningful legal analysis. The court noted that the trial court's order was supported by statutory authority (Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2023.030) and that the appellant's procedural failures constituted a waiver of the argument.

Authorities

  • relied: Balesteri v. Holler (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 717 — Supports the finding that serious defects in an appellate brief can justify a finding of waiver of arguments.
  • relied: Hansen v. Sunnyside Products, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497 — Supports the finding that serious defects in an appellate brief can justify a finding of waiver of arguments.
  • relied: Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189 — Establishes that civil litigants must abide by the same appellate procedures whether or not they employ an attorney.
  • relied: Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786 — Establishes that in propria persona litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know the rules.
  • relied: Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108 — Places the burden on the appellant to show reversible error.
  • relied: Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888 — An appellate court is not required to develop arguments for an appellant on its own motion.
  • relied: Estate of Beard (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 753 — If an order is correct on any theory, the appellate court will affirm it regardless of the trial court's reasoning.
  • relied: In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 — Conclusory claims of error will fail; the appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and the record.
  • relied: Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093 — The standard of review for terminating sanctions is abuse of discretion.
  • relied: Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359 — It is the appellant's burden to establish an abuse of discretion; the court may not substitute its opinion unless there is a clear case of abuse and a miscarriage of justice.

The appellate opinion: sound — sound

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

The San Bernardino County Superior Court granted terminating sanctions against defendant Paul Matlock for failing to comply with a prior discovery order, struck his answer, and allowed plaintiff Kelly to proceed to default judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Matlock's pro se brief violated rule 8.204(a) in multiple respects, waived any claim of error, and failed to carry his burden of showing the terminating sanctions order was an abuse of discretion.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Order granting terminating sanctions, striking Matlock's answer, and permitting default judgment proceedings for failure to obey a prior order compelling discovery responses
“Matlock does not even mention the sanctions issue in his brief, much less make any effort to examine the substantive issues of whether the order was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Matlock has failed to show error in the order and we therefore affirm the judgment.”
abuse of discretioncorrectagree with court
The court correctly identified abuse of discretion as the standard for reviewing terminating sanctions and correctly placed the burden on the appellant to demonstrate error with record citations and legal argument. Where the appellant's brief fails to address the sanctions order at all and violates rule 8.204(a), treating the arguments as forfeited and affirming is consistent with settled appellate practice, and the statutory basis for terminating sanctions after disobedience of a discovery order (sections 2023.030 and 2030.290) is accurately stated.

Authorities

  • relied: Balesteri v. Holler (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 717 — An appellant's failure to comply with rules governing appellate briefs may result in waiver of arguments.
  • relied: Hansen v. Sunnyside Products, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1497 — Deficient briefing that fails to cite the record or present argument justifies treating contentions as waived.
  • relied: Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189 — A self-represented civil litigant must follow the same procedural rules as a represented party.
  • relied: Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786 — In propria persona litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know the rules.
  • relied: Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108 — The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error.
  • relied: Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888 — An appellate court is not required to develop arguments on an appellant's behalf.
  • relied: Estate of Beard (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 753 — A correct ruling will be affirmed on any theory regardless of the trial court's stated reasoning.
  • relied: In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 — An appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and the record; conclusory claims of error fail.
  • relied: Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093 — Orders imposing terminating discovery sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
  • relied: Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359 — The appellant bears the burden of establishing abuse of discretion, and absent a clear showing of abuse and miscarriage of justice the reviewing court will not substitute its judgment.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the correct abuse-of-discretion standard and well-established forfeiture and burden-of-proof principles to a brief that did not address the dispositive sanctions order, and it accurately describes the statutory authority for terminating sanctions. It does not independently examine whether the record supported terminating sanctions, but that gap is attributable to the appellant's failure to raise or brief the issue, so the result is defensible.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 5/13/16 Kelly v. Matlock 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

PAUL KELLY, D068639

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1310397)

PAUL MATLOCK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Pamela P. King, Judge. Affirmed.

Paul Matlock, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Plaintiff Paul Kelly sued Little Rock Special Needs Trust (Trust) and its beneficiary Paul Matlock (Matlock) for damages. Trust and Matlock, after eventually filing answers to the complaint, responded to Kelly's discovery requests by informing Kelly's counsel they would not answer the discovery. The court granted Kelly's motion to compel certain responses, and to deem all requests for admissions admitted. One year later, after Matlock and Trust did not comply with the previous discovery order, Kelly moved for terminating sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 2023.010, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 2030.290 and 2031.320.

The court entered an order granting terminating sanctions and ordered Matlock's answer be set aside and granted Kelly the right to proceed with default judgment proceedings.

Matlock has appealed from the judgment.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Matlock—who appears in propria persona—has filed a brief that is seriously defective under the provisions of the California Rules of Court, and we affirm the trial court's rulings on this procedural ground. Matlock's brief does not properly identify the order or judgment appealed from, does not include the required statement of the procedural history of the case, does not contain citations to the record supporting the factual assertions offered in appellant's brief, and contains no legal argument directed at whether the trial court erred by granting terminating sanctions, all of which are required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a). Matlock's multiple failures and blatant violations of the California Rules of Court impede our review, and justify a finding that he has waived any arguments seeking to overturn the trial court's rulings. (See Balesteri v. Holler (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 717, 720-721; Hansen v. Sunnyside Products, Inc. (1997)

55 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1503-1504, fn. 2.)

1 All further references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

2 Moreover, Matlock's brief interposes arguments that are largely incoherent. A civil litigant must abide by the same procedures, including appellate procedures, whether or not he or she chooses to employ an attorney. (Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193; Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795 ["[i]n propria persona litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, rights than represented litigants and are presumed to know the [procedural and court] rules"].) That obligation places on Matlock, as the party who brought this appeal, the burden to show reversible error (Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116), and an appellate court is not required, on its own motion, to develop arguments for an appellant. (Dills v. Redwoods Associates, Ltd. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 888, 890, fn. 1.)

If an order is correct on any theory, the appellate court will affirm it regardless of the trial court's reasoning (Estate of Beard (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 753, 776-777), and it rests on the appellant to show reversible error, which means the "appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] . . . Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail." (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)

The underlying judgment arose because the court ordered terminating sanctions after it ordered Matlock to respond to certain discovery requests, and Matlock refused to comply. Section 2030.290 provides in relevant part: "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to 3 interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.). . . ."

(§ 2030.290, subd. (c), italics added.) Section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(1), expressly authorizes the court to "strik[e] out the pleadings" of any party misusing the discovery process.

When a court has exercised the option of entering an order granting terminating sanctions, we apply the "abuse of discretion" as the standard for review (Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1101-1102), and it is the appellant's burden to establish an abuse of discretion. (Kennedy v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 359, 366.) Unless the appellant shows a clear case of abuse and that there has been a miscarriage of justice, we may not substitute our opinion and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power. (Ibid.) Matlock does not even mention the sanctions issue in his brief, much less make any effort to examine the substantive issues of whether the order was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Matlock has failed to show error in the order and we therefore affirm the judgment.

4 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Kelly is entitled to costs on appeal.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus