Filed 6/11/15 Spadaro v. Riverside County Dept. of Animal Services CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
CHARLOTTE SPADARO,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E058093
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIC10008502)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OPINION
OF ANIMAL SERVICES et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gloria Trask, Judge.
Affirmed.
Charlotte Spadaro, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Raymond M. Mistica, Deputy County
Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff and appellant Charlotte Spadaro filed three separate complaints, later
consolidated into a single master file by the superior court, alleging various causes of
action against defendants and respondents Riverside County Department of Animal
1
Services (Department) and Robert Miller (Miller and, together with the Department,
defendants) related to the Department’s seizure of animals from her and issuance of 242
citations against her for violations of the City of Riverside’s dog licensing laws. On
December 19, 2012, the trial court dismissed all three complaints and entered judgment
in favor of defendants. Plaintiff has appealed with respect to the dismissal of two of her
three complaints.
Plaintiff, who is a former lawyer1 and represents herself in this appeal, has failed
to provide an adequate record to demonstrate error, and largely fails to articulate cogent
arguments as to why the trial court’s judgment should be reversed. (See City of Santa
Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286-287 (City of Santa Maria) [“to
demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent
argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record”].) To the extent coherent
claims of error may be gleaned from plaintiff’s briefing, those claims are without merit.
We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The register of actions indicates that plaintiff filed three separate complaints, later
consolidated by the trial court, the first of which was filed May 5, 2010 (case No.
RIC10008502); the second on August 16, 2010 (case No. RIC10016299); and the third
on October 5, 2010 (case No. RIC10019580). Plaintiff failed to designate any of the
1 The State Bar of California’s website indicates that plaintiff was disbarred on
July 6, 2013. (