The justices on the Court of Appeal want you to make their jobs easier, not harder. So try to do so. If only because, if you fail, you risk having them say something like this about you:
"Appellants argue evidentiary error, insufficiency of evidence, constitutional
claims, and miscellany. They fail to show prejudicial evidentiary error, yet appear to
assume in their substantial evidence argument that we should disregard the evidence they
challenged. Appellants misstate facts and law (despite taking almost a year to prepare the
opening brief) and fail to support each factual assertion in their brief with a citation to the
record, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C). Appellants’ reply
brief acknowledges the opening brief’s factual misstatements and defects but dismisses
them as inconsequential and nonprejudicial to plaintiff. Appellants thus miss the point
that they have the duty on appeal to state the evidence fairly, in the light most favorable
to the trial court’s ruling, and record citations are for the benefit of the reviewing court as
well as the respondent. (Cites)
Appellants’ neglect is particularly burdensome, given that they submitted 380
pages of initial briefing (114-page opening brief plus 266 pages of addenda of purported
facts and objections). For its part, the Attorney General offers this court no help, instead
compounding the problem with a 458-page rambling respondent’s brief plus 28-page
addendum. Appellants’ 71-page reply brief rounds out the mass. Despite appellants’
defects, we nevertheless endeavor to address their contentions." (emphasis in original)
Not something you want to read. At least when it's said about you.
