Leondis v. PayPal CA1/1

Filed 6/23/25 Leondis v. PayPal CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE PAUL LEONDIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. A170987 PAYPAL, INC., (Alameda County Defendant and Respondent. Super. Ct. No. RG21090434) After plaintiff Paul Leondis was unable to access a payment of $1,073 sent to him via PayPal, Leondis sued PayPal for conversion; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; breach of the implied duty to act with reasonable care; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; UCL). PayPal eventually moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Leondis, appearing in propria persona, challenges the judgment on numerous grounds. While Leondis was clearly frustrated by his experience with PayPal, he has failed to demonstrate any prejudicial error by the trial court. Many of his arguments on appeal were either not properly preserved in the trial court and thus have been forfeited or have been waived on appeal due to deficiencies in his appellate briefing, most notably the lack of developed legal analysis and/or failure to provide adequate record 1 citations. We affirm. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS Before discussing Leondis’s claims of error, we find it necessary to stress “[p]erhaps the most fundamental rule of appellate law”—i.e., “that the judgment challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) “ ‘This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his [or her] claim.’ ” (L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 619.) Rather, “ ‘[i]n order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record. Rather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has forfeited a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record. [Citations.] Similarly, we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority.’ ” (Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 583, 597 (Champir).) This is no less true when we are exercising our de novo review over an order granting summary judgment. (Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 [“Although our review of a summary judgment is de novo, it is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and supported in plaintiffs’ brief.”]; see Bernard v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1203, 1205 [the problem caused by inadequate citations to the record is “especially acute” when an appeal is taken from a summary judgment].) Leondis’s briefing suffers from these deficiencies. While Leondis’s unrepresented status may explain these shortcomings, it does not excuse them. (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 2 1267 [“ ‘ “the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney” ’ ”].) Those representing themselves are afforded no additional leniency or immunity from the rules of appellate procedure simply because of their propria persona status. (See Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) As a second consideration before we proceed to Leondis’s claims of error, we point out that our factual discussion is largely based on the declaration of Steve Tarvin filed in support of PayPal’s summary judgment motion. In the trial court, Leondis objected to Tarvin’s declaration in his responses to PayPal’s separate statement on grounds of hearsay, lack of foundation, and violation of Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, subdivision (d). He also asserted the declaration contradicted previous testimony and was, at times, conclusory. The trial court did not consider Leondis’s evidentiary objections; specifically, because it found them procedurally deficient for failure to comply with California Rules