X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 18 / 43

112 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

18 / 43

the application for preliminary injunction and it is that court’s province to resolve conflicts.’  [Citation.]  Our task is to ensure that the trial court’s factual determinations, whether express or implied, are supported by substantial evidence.  [Citation.]  Thus, we interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge in all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s order.  [Citations.]”  (Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 618, 625.)  

Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion the Broderick Boys is a criminal street gang operating in the Safety Zone.  As for defendants’ argument that plaintiff failed to establish the named defendants are active members of the Broderick Boys, they make no individualized arguments in this regard.  In other words, defendants do not explain how the evidence is insufficient to establish any individual defendant is not an active member.  “An appellate brief ‘should contain a legal argument with citation of authorities on the points made.  If none is furnished on a particular point, the court may treat it as [forfeited], and pass it without consideration.’ [Citation.]”  (In re Marriage of Schroeder (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1154, 1164.)  It is not the function of this court to comb the record looking for the evidence or absence of evidence to support defendants’ argument.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C); Grand v. Griesinger (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 397, 403.)  

18

Document info
Document views112
Page views112
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 23:04:46 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments