NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

OPINION

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

Following a bench trial, the court entered judgment against defendant Ravadee Ruangtragool and in favor of plaintiff The Irvine Company in its unlawful detainer action. Defendant appeals contending the court abused its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration and entering judgment against her. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After defendant defaulted on a commercial lease, plaintiff served a five-day notice to pay rent or quit. Defendant did not pay the outstanding amount due within five days after the notice was served. The trial court found plaintiff had proved its case and entered judgment in its favor.

Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the court "failed to consider new facts learned of for the first time by [d]efendant at trial as a result of the testimony of [p]laintiff's witness . . . . [¶] . . . [T]he court further indicated that it did not read the briefs or consider the evidence admitted on the stand . . . ." Judgment was entered two days after the motion was filed and defendant appealed. A month later, the court denied the motion because it failed to show newly discovered evidence or law as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

DISCUSSION

At the outset, we note defendant's failure to comply with the Rules of Court. An appellant must set out a "summary of the significant facts" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C)), each supported by a reference "to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears" (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)). Defendant violated these rules by failing to set forth the relevant facts or provide record references for most of her claims. These violations alone are enough to affirm the judgment. We are not required to scour the record to find support for defendant's arguments. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246.) Where, as here, "`a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, . . . the argument [is] deemed to have been waived. [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)

Plaintiff also raises several procedural impediments to appellate review, one of which is that the motion "is not subject to review because judgment was entered before the hearing on the motion to reconsider." (Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 937-938 [trial court had no jurisdiction to rule on reconsideration motion where judgment entered and appeal perfected]; cf. D.R.S. Trading Company, Inc. v. Barnes (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 815, 819 [distinguishing Betz where no appeal pending].) Here, judgment was entered two days after defendant filed her motion for reconsideration and defendant promptly appealed. Once that happened, the trial court lost jurisdiction to consider the motion for reconsideration. (Betz v. Pankow, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at pp. 937-938.)

Defendant's basis for appeal was the judgment, not the denial of a motion that the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider. But her sole challenge to the judgment is that the court erred in entering it because the denial of her motion for reconsideration constituted an abuse of discretion. Given that the order is not properly before us, there is nothing for us to review.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover its costs on appeal.

WE CONCUR:

MOORE, J.

ARONSON, J.