California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, 2017

Ewald v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC

California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District · Decided June 28, 2017 · Duarte

220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751; 13 Cal. App. 5th 947; 2017 WL 3193760; 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 654 (California Reporter, Third Series)

Cases that cite this one

117 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Connolly Ranch v. Department of Parks and Recreation CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Connolly Ranch v. Department of Parks and Recreation CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
People v. Jamerson-Keosodsay CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Marriage of Wehrli CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Law Offices of Benjamin Pavone v. Willis CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)
People v. Salazar CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Alexander v. City of Santa Cruz CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Marriage of Bassi CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
J.People v. Sutter Bay Hospitals CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Cramer v. Auburn Lake Trails Property Owners Association CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Alliance San Diego v. California Taxpayers Action Network (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Wrightsman v. City of Gardena CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025)
Perez v. Perez CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024)
Conservatorship of Parks CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Estate of Parks CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Marriage of Joe and Lee CA6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022)
Farmland Protection Alliance v. County of Yolo (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)
Arnold v. Dignity Health (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)
Echeverria v. Johnson (Cal. Ct. App. 2019)
Palmieri v. Cal. State Pers. Bd. (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
Gearing v. Coastside Land Trust CA1/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
D.H. v. Superior Court CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Osunde v. Cal. State Teachers' Retirement System CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Qiao v. Chang CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)
Lipanovich v. Christians CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Duarte, J.

*948Plaintiff Richard Ewald, through counsel, timely appealed from a judgment following a successful defense motion for summary judgment.

Ewald's counsel fails to articulate the standard of review on appeal, in and of itself a potentially fatal omission. " 'Arguments should be tailored according to the applicable standard of appellate review.' [Citation.] Failure to acknowledge the proper scope of review is a concession of a lack of merit." ( *752Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc . (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 301.) More importantly, Ewald's counsel fails to provide any legal authority to support her arguments. We repeatedly have held that the failure to provide legal authorities to support arguments forfeits contentions of error. (See In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408, 41 Cal.Rptr.3d 453 ; Akins v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1, 50, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 314 ; In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 672-673, fn. 3, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 13.) *949As respondent's counsel observes, Ewald's counsel does provide an accurate statutory citation in support of the proposition that the judgment is appealable ( Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(1) ), and in her statement of the case she cites a single case referenced by the trial court in its tentative ruling ( Nungaray v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1499, 135 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 ). Putting aside the fact that Ewald's counsel both fails to cite that case properly and fails to provide an accurate citation to where the document citing that case can be found in the record on appeal, the trial court did not even cite to that case in the final ruling. Further, Ewald's counsel does not explain the holding of that case, nor does counsel explain why that case has any relevance to her claims on appeal, to the extent we can decipher them.

In the argument section of her brief, Ewald's counsel describes two causes of action, misrepresentation and breach of contract, and argues triable issues remain as to each. However, she does not describe the elements of either cause of action. Without a statement of the elements of a cause of action, supported by authority, counsel cannot establish whether triable issues of fact exist as to either cause of action.

In short, as respondent properly argues, the opening brief does not satisfy counsel's duty to provide adequate legal authority to support this appeal. Ewald's counsel did not file a reply brief, nor anywhere offer an explanation for failing to comply with her duty to properly brief this case. In light of counsel's egregious violations of basic appellate norms, we affirm the judgment without discussing the merits.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Appellant shall pay respondent's costs of this appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).)

We concur:

Robie, Acting P. J.

Butz, J.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.