Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Roebke v. Ahmed CA2/4

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B339954

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/17/26 Roebke v. Ahmed CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

RONETTE ROEBKE, B339954

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24TRCV00427)
v.

NUSURI AHMED,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Gary Y. Tanaka, Judge. Affirmed.
Nusuri Ahmed, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Stone & Sallus, Jason M. Stone and Barton E. DeBolt for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Nusuri Ahmed appeals from a judgment entered
in favor of plaintiff Ronette Roebke following a bench trial.
Ahmed contends the trial court erred in its findings and
committed several procedural errors. Because Ahmed failed to
brief the issues sufficiently or provide an adequate record to
review his claims, he has forfeited his arguments. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2021, Ahmed leased a residential property in Torrance
from Roebke. In January 2024, Roebke served Ahmed with a
three-day notice to pay rent or quit, demanding several months’
worth of past due rent. Ahmed did not pay the rent demanded,
and Roebke filed an unlawful detainer complaint against him.
A bench trial was held in late May and early June 2024.
Both parties presented evidence and testimony. On June 6, 2024,
the trial court held a hearing to give the parties an oral tentative
ruling and hear argument from counsel (the June 6 hearing).
The court found Roebke met her burden of proof at trial. It then
addressed Ahmed’s claim the residence suffered from multiple
habitability issues. It found he provided insufficient evidence to
establish Roebke breached the warranty of habitability. After
hearing from counsel, the court entered judgment for Roebke for
possession of the premises, forfeiture of the lease, and past-due
rent and holdover damages totaling $56,817.16. Ahmed
appealed.

DISCUSSION
Ahmed argues the evidence presented at trial did not
support the judgment. He asserts the evidence showed Roebke
unreasonably refused to accept rent payments and breached the

2
implied warranty of habitability by failing to make repairs and
remediate mold. He also asserts the trial court made other
procedural and substantive errors. Ahmed does not meet his
burden of affirmatively showing the trial court erred.
Ahmed’s deficient briefing coupled with an inadequate
record compels us to conclude he has forfeited his contentions on
appeal. A judgment or order of the lower court is “‘presumed
correct,’” and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in
favor of its correctness. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2
Cal.3d 557, 564.) “‘In order to demonstrate error, an appellant
must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument
supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.’” (United
Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th
142, 153.)
Ahmed’s factual contentions are forfeited because he does
not adequately support them. His briefs do not provide a fair
summary of the evidence upon which the trial court’s judgment is
based. (Oak Valley Hospital Dist. v. State Dept. of Health Care
Services (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 212, 237 [appellant has duty to
fairly summarize all facts favorable to judgment; failure to do so
forfeits claims].) They contain virtually no citations to the record,
and the few citations provided do not support the factual
assertions made. (Slone v. El Centro Regional Medical Center
(2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1160, 1172.)
Ahmed’s legal arguments are similarly forfeited for failure
to provide sufficient supporting authority. First, his opening
brief cites multiple cases that simply do not exist. Second, as to
the cases that do exist, Ahmed fails to cite the portions he asserts
support his claims. (See In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396,

3
412 [citing case with no direction lends “no help as to what part
of the opinion has relevance to this case”].)
It was also Ahmed’s burden to provide an adequate record
to assess his claims of error. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th
594, 609.) He provided only a transcript for the post-trial June 6
hearing where the court issued its tentative ruling and heard
argument from counsel. He did not provide a reporter’s
transcript or adequate substitute for any trial proceedings. On
this record, it is impossible to evaluate the evidence presented to
and considered by the court at trial. Consequently, we are
required to presume that any evidence which would have
supported the judgment was presented below and resolve
Ahmed’s claims of error against him.1 (Ibid.)
The limited record provided contradicts Ahmed’s claim that
his due process rights were violated at the June 6 hearing.
Ahmed contends that at the hearing the trial court improperly
“reversed” its “prior judgment” in his favor, but the hearing
transcript shows this is not what occurred. Rather, the court
explained that it had given its initial reaction to the evidence
after closing arguments. Then the court set the June 6 hearing to

1 With his reply brief, Ahmed filed a motion to augment the
record with “[t]rial exhibits and the May 31, 2024 proceedings” due to
“clerical omission.” The motion is denied. Ahmed does not show he
first filed the required notice in the superior court asking it to correct
any clerical omission, and it is unclear whether a clerical error was
made. He does not identify with any specificity or attach copies of the
documents he wants added to the record. (See Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.155(a)(2), (b)(1).) Further, his briefing fails to provide citations
to any trial exhibits, and thus the motion is insufficient to cure his
deficient briefing. Finally, Roebke would be prejudiced by augmenting
the record at this juncture as the motion was filed after she filed her
respondent’s brief.

4
issue a tentative ruling and hear argument from counsel. Ahmed
cites no authority suggesting this procedure violated due process.
(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(b) [“The tentative decision
does not constitute a judgment and is not binding on the court”].)
Ahmed next contends he was prejudiced by the absence of
an interpreter at the June 6 hearing at which counsel argued.
The record presented, however, does not show that Ahmed
requested an interpreter for the hearing or objected on this basis.
(Johnson v. Greenelsh (2009) 47 Cal.4th 598, 603 [“‘issues not
raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal’”].) Moreover, Ahmed’s assertion that the absence of an
interpreter at the post-trial hearing where counsel argued “may
have materially affected the outcome” is insufficient to establish
prejudicial error. (See People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116,
144 [“‘Improper procedures in the use of an interpreter do not rise
to the level of a constitutional violation unless they result in
prejudice demonstrating defendant was denied his right to a fair
trial’”].)
Finally, Ahmed contends the trial court miscalculated
damages because it did not consider “possible abatements” for
Roebke’s failure to provide “habitable conditions.” The court,
however, concluded Ahmed failed to prove a breach of the
warranty of habitability, and he has not shown error.

5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Roebke is awarded costs on
appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

MORI, J.
We concur:

COLLINS, Acting P. J.

TAMZARIAN, J.

6