NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OPINION
THE COURT*
Appellant Antonino Alcaraz Diaz (Diaz) appeals a judgment entered in favor of respondent Yoder Property Management (Yoder) after the trial court sustained, without leave to amend, Yoder's demurrer to Diaz's third amended complaint. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2009, Diaz, acting in propria persona, filed a form complaint against Yoder.1 Diaz checked the box next to item 10b. ("General Negligence") indicating that the cause of action was attached to the complaint. However, he did not attach any causes of action to the complaint. Diaz also checked boxes next to the various types of damages he allegedly suffered, including item 11g. ("other damage") below which he wrote: "Plaintiffs were misled to believe that the owner of the plaza where they had their business was responsible in restitution for the damages to their place of business due to a fire in the plaza." The complaint contained no other factual allegations.
Yoder demurred to Diaz's complaint. The supporting memorandum of points and authorities concluded with the following summary of Yoder's arguments:
"Yoder Property Management is the property manager for commercial property owned by Valley Plaza, Inc. Mr. Alcaraz Diaz leased space in that property pursuant to a written lease with the property. That written lease states that the Lessor is no[t] responsible for the Lessee's personal property or lost income. Mr. Diaz' business was damaged by an arson fire that occurred in November 2004. In February 2006, Plaintiff Antonino Alcaraz [Diaz] sued a shareholder of Valley Plaza, Inc., including claims arising from the underlying lease. A judgment against Mr. Diaz was affirmed on appeal. Any and all claims from property damages to Plaintiffs['] business caused by that fire or from any alleged misrepresentation of the terms of the subject lease are barred by the statute of limitations. Further, because all issues related to Mr. Diaz' lease were previously litigated, his claims are barred by res judicata. Further, the complaint fails to state any facts sufficient to state a cause of action."
Appellant did not oppose Yoder's demurrer, and the trial court confirmed its tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend. The ruling explained:
"The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for general negligence, particularly in connection with the accrual date of the cause of action for purposes of determining whether the statute of limitations may have expired. Further, the complaint is uncertain as there are no facts which describe the incident or transaction and the complaint is missing the attachment as indicated in box 10b."
On April 21, 2009, Diaz filed a first amended complaint, which varied very little from the original complaint. The same boxes were checked as before and no causes of action were attached. Using slightly different wording from the original complaint, Diaz alleged that "[t]hey were misled to believe that the owner of the plaza where they were renting was responsible in the restitution for their damages due to the fire in [the] plaza."
Yoder filed an unopposed demurrer, which the trial court sustained with leave to amend, explaining:
"The complaint continues to fail to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for general negligence, particularly in connection with the accrual date of the cause of action for purposes of determining whether the statute of limitations may have expired. Further, the complaint is uncertain as there are no facts which describe the incident or transaction and the complaint is again missing the attachment as indicated in box 10b."
In an order filed on October 8, 2009, the trial court granted Diaz's ex parte request to file a proposed second amended complaint. Diaz used the same form complaint as before but did not check any of the boxes to indicate which causes of action he was pursuing nor did he attach any causes of action to the complaint. He also omitted the written allegation, included in his prior complaints, concerning being misled to believe that the plaza owner was responsible for his damages caused by a fire in the plaza. However, under item 11g. ("other damage"), Diaz added the allegation that he suffered mental instability due to spousal abandonment.
Yoder filed another unopposed demurrer, and the trial court again confirmed a tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend. The ruling contained language similar to the previous rulings, and noted that "the complaint is again missing the attachments to show which causes of action are being alleged."
On December 28, 2009, Diaz filed a third amended complaint. He used a form complaint for contract actions but failed to check any of the boxes indicating which causes of action he was pursuing and no causes of action were attached to the complaint. The third amended complaint was also devoid of factual allegations.
Diaz apparently failed to serve the third amended complaint on Yoder. After obtaining a copy from the court's file, Yoder filed a demurrer on April 2, 2010. In the moving points and authorities, Yoder summarized its arguments as follows:
"Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint fails to contain a single fact, and provides absolutely no indication of any theory of liability or cause of action.... Moreover, judicial notice of the minimal language of the original and first amended complaint, as compared to Mr. Alcaraz's initial action, Alcaraz v. Lee, Case No. 378232, leads to the inevitable conclusion that this case arises from a 2004 fire, thus, no matter the theory, damage to personal property or fraud, and not withstanding any potential collateral estoppel issue, plaintiff's case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and should be stricken on that basis without any further leave to amend."
Diaz did not file any opposition to Yoder's demurrer. On May 11, 2010, he filed a packet of documents with a cover sheet describing the contents as "my file of my case and the proof of all the damage." Neither party requested a hearing and, on May 18, 2010, the trial court confirmed its tentative ruling sustaining Yoder's demurrer to Diaz's third amended complaint, this time without leave to amend. The ruling explained:
"The complaint continues to fail to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for general negligence, particularly in connection with the accrual date of the cause of action for purposes of determining whether the statute of limitations may have expired. Further, it does not appear to the Court that said defect can be cured by amendment...."
A judgment in favor of Yoder was signed on July 26, 2010, and the notice of entry of judgment was filed on September 22, 2010. Diaz filed a notice of appeal on November 8, 2010.
DISCUSSION
In a three-page opening brief with numerous attachments, Diaz contends "[t]he question presented in this appeal is `who is liable to pay for damages done to my business'" and asks this court to "overturn" the judgment and "to view my case and to direct me on to who is responsible so we can come to a settlement agreement."
A. Procedural Concerns
We initially address the form of Diaz's brief. Under the law, a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney. Such a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. Thus, as is the case with attorneys, in propria persona litigants such as appellant must follow correct rules of procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)
The judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct and it is the appellant's burden to affirmatively show error. To demonstrate error, 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. When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court. Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail. In addition, an appellant's brief must state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point. This is not a mere technical requirement. Rather, it is designed to lighten the labors of appellate tribunals by requiring litigants to present their cause in a systematic manner for adjudication. Under California law, it is not the role of an appellate court to carry out this burden. (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 410-412; Wallace v. Thompson (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 21, 22.)
Diaz's brief on appeal fails to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 8.204 (contents and form of briefs), particularly the requirements of a table of authorities, separately stated points, citations to the record, statement of the nature of the action, statement of the finality of the judgment, and summary of significant facts limited to matters in the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)). If, as here, the brief is filed, the reviewing court may on its own motion without notice (a) order the brief returned for corrections and refilling within a specified time; (b) strike the brief with leave to file a new brief within a specified time; or (c) disregard the noncompliance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(e).) In view of the press of court business, the scarcity of judicial resources, and the fact this appeal has been pending for over a year, we believe the most reasonable course of action is to disregard the noncompliance.
B. The Demurrer
We interpret Diaz's brief as implicitly contending that the trial court erred in sustaining Yoder's demurrer to Diaz's third amended complaint without leave to amend.
In reviewing a judgment following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, "`[t]he reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. [Citations.] The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.] The judgment must be affirmed "if any one of the several grounds of demurrer is well taken. [Citations.]" [Citation.] However, it is error for a trial court to sustain a demurrer when the plaintiff has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory. [Citation.] And it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment. [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (Payne v. National Collection Systems, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1043-1044.)
When "reviewing a demurrer that is sustained without leave to amend, an appellate court assumes the truth of (1) all facts properly pleaded by the plaintiff, (2) all facts contained in exhibits to the complaint, (3) all facts that are properly the subject of judicial notice, and (4) all facts that reasonably may be inferred from the foregoing facts." (Neilson v. City of California City (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1305.) In contrast, an appellate court must independently decide all issues of law and, thus, may not accept the truth of legal contentions, conclusions of law, or deductions drawn from those legal contentions or conclusions when reviewing the sufficiency of the allegations. (Ibid.)
The demurrer to Diaz's third amended complaint was properly sustained. As Yoder's brief on appeal correctly observes, despite being given "multiple opportunities to amend his Judicial Counsel form complaint in order [to] state a cause of action, and to address the statute of limitations issue.... each successive complaint actually provided fewer facts, until [Diaz] filed his Third Amended Complaint, which was essentially a blank form." Thus, the trial court correctly concluded that Diaz's third amended complaint failed to state a cause of action and properly sustained Yoder's demurrer without leave to amend.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
