MITRA RASHTI v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (2010)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Mitra Rashti appeals the trial court's denial of her petition for writ of mandate in which she sought to compel the resumption of long term disability payments to her by the County of Los Angeles.   We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In ruling on the petition for writ of mandate, the trial court found the following facts to be undisputed:  (1) Rashti became totally disabled after having been employed by the County of Los Angeles for more than five years.   (2) After a waiting period of six months, Rashti began to receive long term disability (LTD) benefits from the County.  (3) Rashti continued to be paid these benefits for more than 24 months.  (4) Rashti was repeatedly warned that in order to continue to be eligible to receive LTD benefits after the 24-month mark, she had to retire from County service.  (5) Rashti refused, and still refuses, to file an application for retirement.  (6) After extending her additional time to apply for retirement, the County ultimately stopped paying her LTD benefits.

The trial court concluded that Rashti was required to retire from County service in order to continue receiving benefits after 24 months;  and, having steadfastly refused to do so, she was not entitled to continue receiving LTD benefits.   Rashti appeals.

DISCUSSION

A trial court's “judgment is presumed to be correct, and it is appellant's burden to affirmatively show error.  [Citation.]  To demonstrate error, 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.]  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.’  (Atchley v. City of Fresno [ (1984) ] 151 Cal.App.3d [635,] 647;  accord, Berger v. Godden [ (1985) ] 163 Cal.App.3d [1113,] 1117 [‘failure of appellant to advance any pertinent or intelligible legal argument ․ constitute[s] an abandonment of the [claim of error]’].)   Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.  [¶] In addition, appellant's brief ‘must’ ‘[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point․’  [Citations.]   This is not a mere technical requirement;  it is ‘designed to lighten the labors of the appellate tribunals by requiring the litigants to present their cause systematically and so arranged that those upon whom the duty devolves of ascertaining the rule of law to apply may be advised, as they read, of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass.’   [Citations.]”  (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.)

We have examined Rashti's brief in detail and find that she has failed to present argument and legal authority on each point raised.  (Boyle v. CertainTeed Corp. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645, 649.)   While it is clear that she disagrees with the decision of the trial court, she fails to clearly articulate legally cognizable grounds upon which she believes it to have been erroneous.   Other than citations that support her statement of the standard of review, she has provided no citations to authority to support her assertions.   The briefing, moreover, is replete with references to facts that appear to be outside the record and are therefore beyond our consideration in this appeal.   (CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 537, 539, fn 1.) Rashti's reply brief, while more cogent in its presentation, is similarly devoid of authority to support her contentions beyond two cases cited for the standard of review.

We acknowledge a self-represented litigant's understanding of the rules on appeal are, as a practical matter, more limited than an experienced appellate attorney's.   Whenever possible, we do not strictly apply technical rules of procedure in a manner that deprives litigants of a hearing.   However, when, as here, the total lack of compliance with the Rules of Court results in our inability to conduct a meaningful review of the trial court's decision, we cannot ignore the fundamental rules of appellate practice.  (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.   Respondents shall recover their costs, if any, on appeal.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J. WOODS, J.