Burgueno

DISCUSSION

Sufficiency of the Evidence and Exclusion of Evidence Contentions With respect to Burgueno’s first two contentions challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the verdict, “[a] party who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding must set forth, discuss, and analyze all the evidence on that point,

1 All statutory references are to the Labor Code, unless otherwise stated. 2 both favorable and unfavorable.” (Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 218.) Our review of the record reveals that Burgueno failed to fully and fairly discuss conflicting evidence in the statement of facts, not even acknowledging the contrary testimony offered by witnesses.2 Because Burgueno omitted evidence supporting the verdict, we deem his substantial evidence challenges forfeited. (Ibid.) With respect to Burgueno’s third contention that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence, an appellant’s opening brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Burgueno neglected…