limiting the to developing a plan for rehabilitation and implementing the receiver’s role plan once it had been approved. DISCUSSION Reddy contends the trial court abused its discretion in (1) overruling his evidentiary objections, (2) failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and (3) appointing a receiver. Evidentiary Objections. Reddy’s As noted above, the trial court effectively overruled both parties’ objections, concluding that they to the weight to be given to the evidence, not to its “go and considered all of the evidence submitted. admissibility,” We find challenge to the trial evidentiary rulings to be forfeited. Reddy’s court’s If a party contends that an evidentiary objection was improperly overruled by the trial court, the party must identify the specific objection, provide legal argument explaining why the trial ruling was in error, and support that argument with citation to court’s pertinent legal authority. (Salas (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th v. Department of Transportation 1058, 1074 (Salas).) Rather than address the propriety of any of his specific objections, Reddy court to rule on each of these objections as should have been simply “ask[s] this done by the trial novo review of his evidentiary court[,]” essentially seeking de objections. Under similar circumstances, the court held that the challenge to Salas appellants’ the trial evidentiary rulings was forfeited by their failure separately to identify and court’s discuss individual evidentiary objections. In that case, the trial court had sustained objections to most of the evidence. (Salas, 198 Cal.App.4th at supra, appellants’ p. 1073.) Although the appellants disputed those rulings in general, they did not separately discuss specific objections. In finding the appellate claims forfeited, the court is on appeal to affirmatively challenge the trial explained: “It appellant’s ‘burden court’s evidentiary ruling, and demonstrate the . . [¶] . . . Plaintiffs make no court’s error.’. attempt to demonstrate how each evidentiary ruling was erroneous. They have not specified the evidentiary objections to which their cursory argument is addressed, nor
limiting the receiver’s role to developing a plan for rehabilitation and implementing the plan once it had been approved. DISCUSSION Reddy contends the trial court abused its discretion in (1) overruling his evidentiary objections, (2) failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and (3) appointing a receiver. Reddy’s Evidentiary Objections. As noted above, the trial court effectively overruled both parties’ objections, concluding that they “go to the weight to be given to the evidence, not to its admissibility,” and considered all of the evidence submitted. We find Reddy’s challenge to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings to be forfeited. If a party contends that an evidentiary objection was improperly overruled by the trial court, the party must identify the specific objection, provide legal argument explaining why the trial court’s ruling was in error, and support that argument with citation to pertinent legal authority. (Salas v. Department of Transportation (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1074 (Salas).) Rather than address the propriety of any of his specific objections, Reddy simply “ask[s] this court to rule on each of these objections as should have been done by the trial court[,]” essentially seeking de novo review of his evidentiary objections. Under similar circumstances, the Salas court held that the appellants’ challenge to the trial court’s evidentiary rulings was forfeited by their failure separately to identify and discuss individual evidentiary objections. In that case, the trial court had sustained objections to most of the appellants’ evidence. (Salas, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 1073.) Although the appellants disputed those rulings in general, they did not separately discuss specific objections. In finding the appellate claims forfeited, the court explained: “It is appellant’s ‘burden on appeal to affirmatively challenge the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, and demonstrate the court’s error.’. . . [¶] . . . Plaintiffs make no attempt to demonstrate how each evidentiary ruling was erroneous. They have not specified the evidentiary objections to which their cursory argument is addressed, nor
A143640.DOCX