DISCUSSION

In his notice of appeal, appellant identifies the September 17, 2019, minute order as the order from which he is appealing. That order, however, is not appealable because it directs counsel to prepare a formal order. (See Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1091 [where a formal order is required, the minute order is not appealable].)

2 Nevertheless, it is our duty to liberally construe a notice of appeal in favor of its sufficiency, so long as the other party is not misled or prejudiced. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.100(a)(2); see, e.g., Red Mountain, LLC v. Fallbrook Public Utility Dist. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 333, 344; Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 20.) We construe the notice of appeal as applying to the formal order after hearing prepared by counsel following the September 17, 2019, hearing, and filed by the court on January 9, 2020. We perceive no prejudice in doing so. Despite noticing his appeal as being one from the court’s order following the September 17, 2019, hearing, appellant raises grievances related only to the court’s orders issued in July 2017, September 2018, and October 2018. None of these orders are identified in the notice of appeal. More importantly, a notice of appeal must be filed, at the latest, 180 days from entry of the order appealed from. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.) Appellant filed his notice of appeal on November 12, 2019, well beyond the statutory time limit for any order issued in July 2017, September 2018, or October 2018. Accordingly, the time to appeal from these orders has passed. Finally, any claim appellant may have relative to the January 9, 2020, order is forfeited for failing to make a cogent argument for error supported by citations to the record and relevant legal authority. (People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150 [a reviewing court need not address any issue purportedly raised without argument or citation to relevant authority]; Estate of Hoffman (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 635, 639 [“It is the duty of counsel to support his claim by argument and citation of authority. [A reviewing court is] not obliged to perform the duty resting on counsel.”].)

3

DISPOSITION

The orders of the court are affirmed.

/s/

HOCH, J.

We concur:

/s/ MAURO, Acting P. J.

/s/

KRAUSE, J.

4