Manly

Manly v. Excelsior Nutrition CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 3, 2025G062395California1,884 words

Opinion

Opinion

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Excelsior hired Manly as a Quality Control Technician. Excelsior later terminated Manly for violating company policy. Manly sued Excelsior claiming they unlawfully terminated him. Following trial in which a jury found against Manly on all his causes of action, the court entered judgment in favor of Excelsior.

DISCUSSION

I.

FORFEITURE OF APPELLATE CLAIMS

We begin with a brief discussion of appellate principles and requirements. An understanding of these is necessary for a successful appeal, and these apply equally to propria persona litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247 (Nwosu).) The most fundamental rule of appellate procedure is “a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) ‘“In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court.’” (Ibid.) ‘“This means that an appellant must do…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.