DISCUSSION

Greenfield contends we should reverse the judgment of dismissal and order the trial court to consider all of the issues raised in her complaint. We disagree. A self-represented party “‘is to be treated like any other party’” on appeal. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) Such a party must thus “follow correct rules of procedure.” (Ibid.) Among those rules is that requiring “[e]ach and every statement in a brief regarding matters that are in the record on appeal . . . [to] be supported by a citation to the record.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 96, fn. 2; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) “The claimed existence of facts that are not supported by citations to pages in the appellate record, or not appropriately supported by citations, cannot be considered by this court. [Citations.]” (Mueller v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 809, 816, fn. 5.) “It is not the duty of a reviewing court to search the record for evidence on a point raised by a party whose brief makes no reference to the pages where the evidence can be found. [Citations.]” (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1011 (ComputerXpress).) Here, Greenfield’s opening brief contains no citations to the appellate record. Such a brief is “wholly unacceptable.” (ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011.) We accordingly disregard the factual allegations contained therein.

3 (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 60; Millan v. Restaurant Enterprises Group, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 477, 485.) Greenfield’s brief also contains no legal analysis. “Whether legal or factual, no error warrants reversal unless the appellant can show injury from the error. [Citation.]” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286.) “[T]o demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis.” (Id. at pp. 286-287.) “[W]e may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions [they] want[] us to adopt. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 287.) The argument section of Greenfield’s brief contains little more than a recitation of legal principles with no application to the facts of her case. As with the lack of factual support, the dearth of legal analysis in Greenfield’s brief is unacceptable. (ComputerXpress, supra, 93 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011.) “One cannot simply say the [trial] court erred, and leave it up to the appellate court to figure out why. [Citation.]” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368.) It is not our duty to “‘act as counsel for [Greenfield] . . . and furnish a legal argument as to how the trial court’s rulings . . . constituted an abuse of discretion’ [citation], or a mistake of law.” (Ibid.)

4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

5 Henry J. Walsh, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Joan Greenfield, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kutak Rock and Steven M. Dailey for Defendants and Respondents.