We also feel compelled to disapprove of PRP’s claims in the statement of facts and procedural history that Noble “deceived the trial court by misrepresenting the law”; that it “failed to advise the trial court that this specious argument was previously rejected”; that it “hid from Judge Ochoa that this exact argument was rejected by” another judge; and by referring to the motion as a “ludicrous non-suit motion . . . .” (Italics added.) Attacks on the character of opposing counsel are not well received in this court, and pejorative adjectives do not persuade.
Also, beware of the partially designated transcript: a good lesson appears here, in a section of the decision titled APPEALABILITY OF UNDESIGNATED ISSUES.
And the hits just keep on coming! Here's another appellate crash:
[Another update: And don't miss this $15K appellate sanctions case here.]Because we find the opening and reply briefs, prepared by appellate counsel, are unintelligible and otherwise in violation of settled appellate rules, we deem any and all points raised to be forfeited.