DISCUSSION

Ms. Andongella’s appellate briefs do not conform with the rules of court. She does not include any citations to the record in support of her recitation of facts. (Cal. Rules of Court,

3 rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Her briefs only describe her version of the facts and do not discuss the facts supporting Mr. Weber’s demurrer. (City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 674, fn. 3.) Ms. Andongella does not discuss the standard of review for a demurrer, instead arguing without support in the facts or the law that she was denied due process because she was unable to adduce evidence in support of her claims. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) Failure to comply with the basic rules of appellate procedure waives any claim of error on appeal. (See, e.g., Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856; Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881.) In any event, there is no merit to her claims. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. We review the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action. For purposes of review, we accept as true all material facts alleged in the complaint, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We also consider matters that may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Ms. Andongella claims her causes of action are “totally different causes of action” than those litigated in Mr. Weber’s lawsuit. She also claims she was never Mr. Weber’s tenant, and that she allowed him to use her funds to pay for the Reseda house based on his promise she would be a co-owner of the home (in direct contravention to the express findings of the trial court in the first lawsuit). Ms. Andongella is seeking to relitigate exactly what was decided in the earlier case, or what she should have asserted in the first case by cross-complaint. The law does not permit her to

4 do that. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.30, subd. (a) [“if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which [she] has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded”]; Hill v. Snidow (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 37, 39 [claims for monetary relief barred where they could have been asserted by cross-complaint in quiet title action]; see also Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1164 [discussing res judicata, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion].)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Each party is to bear their own costs on appeal.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

WILEY, J.

5