DISCUSSION

The major problem with James’s appeal lies in his opening brief. As another court observed in describing a similarly inadequate brief, “[i]ndeed, this document is strongly reminiscent of those magazine puzzles of yesteryear where the reader was challenged to ‘guess what is wrong with this picture.’” (People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 280.) James seems to argue that A-United lacked standing to appear in this action because Brenda’s assignment to A-United was somehow invalid. But James does not explain how A-United lacked standing. While James asserts that Brenda could revoke A- United’s standing at any time, he offers no legal authority or record citations in support. It follows that this argument is forfeited on appeal. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [appellant bears the burden of supporting a point with reasoned argument]; County of Sacramento v. Lackner (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 576, 591 [appellant must present argument on each point made]; Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 [appellate court is not required to make an independent, unassisted search of the appellate record].) The appellate record contains a copy of a January 23, 2012, order signed by Commissioner Barkley that indicates that the Davises “legally discharged A-United.” But we have no idea what the significance of this document is. Is it because of this order that A-United lacked standing? James never says.

3 To the extent James claims that the judgment must be set aside because he was “involuntarily prevented from attending the trial,” we cannot agree. James offers no evidence or citations to the record in support of his assertion that he was prevented from attending the trial. An appellate court presumes that the judgment appealed from is correct. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) We adopt all intendments and inferences to affirm the judgment unless the record expressly contradicts them. (See Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583.) An appellant has the burden of overcoming the presumption of correctness, and we decline to consider the issues raised in plaintiff’s opening brief that are not properly presented or sufficiently developed to be cognizable, and we treat them as waived. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793; People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 214, fn. 19; In re David L. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1655, 1661; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545–546.) A party’s election to act in propria persona on appeal does not entitle him to any leniency as to the rules of practice and procedure; otherwise, ignorance unjustly is rewarded. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985; Lombardi v. Citizens Nat. Trust Etc. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208–209.) Making matters worse, James does not provide us with the basic information that we need to determine whether the trial court erred. The appellate record consists solely of a case summary, a copy of the August 12, 2013, judgment, his moving papers seeking to set aside the judgment (but no copy of the opposition that was apparently filed), a copy of the trial court’s order denying his posttrial motion, and the notice of appeal. James has not overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial court’s judgment because he has not presented an adequate record. (Brown v. Boren (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1320–1321.)

4

DISPOSITION

The judgment and order are affirmed. The Cullens are entitled to costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

______________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST

We concur:

_______________________________, P. J.

BOREN

_______________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT

5