Memon

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that the trial court’s orders should be reversed. However, appellant’s opening brief contains neither an intelligible legal argument nor any citations to relevant authority as are required to support his contention. (Kensington University v. Council for Private Postsecondary etc. Education (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 27, 42-43.) Thus, appellant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred. Moreover, appellant’s complaint suffers from the defects set forth by respondents in their demurrers.

2. The alleged fraud cause of action arose on January 12, 2006, when Dugan entered a guilty plea and was sentenced. However, appellant did not file his complaint until October 21, 2010. Therefore, the complaint is barred by the three-year statute of limitations for fraud causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d).) Further, appellant is alleging the fraud cause of action on behalf of Dugan. Thus, appellant is not the real party in interest, i.e., he has suffered no harm and no remedy can provide him relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 367; City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 60.) Accordingly, appellant cannot prosecute the…