Velasco v. Vasquez CA2/7

Filed 10/27/26 Velasco v. Vasquez CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN HUMBERTO VELASCO, B343856 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 20PSFL01321) STEPHANIE VASQUEZ, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa R. Washington, Judge. Affirmed. Humberto Velasco, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Provinziano & Associates and Alphonse F. Provinziano for Defendant and Respondent. __________________________  Humberto Velasco appeals from the family court order denying his request for an order modifying an attorney’s fees award to Stephanie Vasquez, the mother of his child. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2020, Velasco filed a petition to determine custody of his and Vasquez’s then-four-year-old daughter. In March 2021, the family court granted Vasquez’s motion to quash service of the summons for lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because the child (and Vasquez) had been living in Arizona for more than six months prior to Velasco’s petition. Nonetheless, the court denied Vasquez’s request for attorney’s fees and costs under Family Code section 271, subdivision (a), and section 7605. After Vasquez appealed, in July 2023, this court reversed the order denying her request for attorney’s fees and costs and remanded for the family court to make required findings under Family Code sections 271 and 7605. (Velasco v. Vasquez (July 19, 2023, B312701) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, Vasquez dismissed her request for attorney’s fees based on her belief that Velasco would be unable to pay. In March 2024, Vasquez filed two motions to compel discovery responses in the ongoing matter. In the motions, Vasquez sought attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300, subdivision (d), and 2031.310, subdivision (h). In May 2024, Velasco, representing himself, filed a notice of nonappearance, in which he stated he would not be appearing at the hearing on Vasquez’s discovery motions. The next day, after a hearing at which Velasco did not appear, the family court 2 granted the discovery motions and awarded Vasquez attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,744. The court ordered Velasco to pay the fees by November 24, 2024. Velasco did not pay the ordered amount, and he did not appeal the award. Instead, in October 2024, he filed a request for an order modifying the May 2024 attorney’s fees award. In his request, Velasco stated his (former) counsel told him at the time of the May 2024 hearing on Vasquez’s discovery motions that he did not need to appear; Velasco was “confused” when he later saw the court’s order indicated his counsel had not appeared either. Velasco asserted that despite having a full-time job it was impossible for him to pay the fees, which also were not “justified when this was not a marriage or custody battle.” Velasco contended he could no longer afford an attorney but that he had responded to all Vasquez’s requests to the best of his ability and that Vasquez’s “primary focus seems to be driven ... by generating legal fees.” Vasquez opposed the request, arguing the attorney’s fees were properly awarded for Velasco’s discovery noncompliance. Vasquez also submitted the “notice of limited scope representation” Velasco’s attorney had filed before the May 2024 hearing demonstrating Velasco had retained the attorney only to file documents in opposition to the fee request and not to appear at the hearing. Vasquez asked the court to not only deny Velasco’s request but also to order additional monetary sanctions under Family Code section 271.1 1 We augment the record, on our own motion, to include Vasquez’s motions to compel discovery responses, Velasco’s notice of nonappearance, Velasco’s request for an order modifying the attorney’s fees award, Vasquez’s opposition to the request and 3  At the January 2025 hearing, Velasco testified he did not have the income necessary to pay the awarded fees. The family court denied Velasco’s request to modify the attorney’s fee award after indicating it had considered the pleadings and declarations filed by both Velasco and Vasquez. The court noted it had given Velasco ample time to set up a payment plan for the fee award with Vasquez’s counsel. The court ordered the attorney’s fees to be paid within 30 days, after which legal interest would accrue at a rate of 10 percent. The court denied Vasquez’s request for sanctions under Family Code section 271. The court directed Vasquez’s counsel to prepare an order after hearing. Velasco appealed from the minute order denying his request for order. The family court later entered a signed order, and we treat Velasco’s appeal as timely filed after entry of that order. (See In re Marriage of Zimmerman (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 900, 906 [notice of appeal filed after minute order but before entry of signed order treated as filed immediately after entry of signed order].) DISCUSSION Velasco first argues the family court erred in granting Vasquez’s request for an award of attorney’s fees incurred in bringing her motions to compel, when in March 2021 it denied her request for attorney’s fees on her motion to quash. The argument is forfeited because Velasco does not support it with any legal authority. (See County of Sacramento v. Singh (2021) responsive declaration and exhibit list, and the minute orders dated March 19, 2021, and May 24, 2024. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).) 4 65 Cal.App.5th 858, 861 (Singh) [we may disregard legal arguments not supported with legal authority].) Velasco also forfeited the argument by not making it in the family court. (Sander v. Superior Court (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 651, 670 [“ ‘It is axiomatic that arguments not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal.’ ”].) In any event, Velasco’s argument that the family court erred in “reversing its prior fee determination” has no merit. The court’s denial of Vasquez’s request for attorney’s fees in March 2021 was based on her motion to quash. The court did not “reverse” that decision in granting Vasquez’s request for attorney’s fees in May 2024. Rather, it granted a new and unrelated request for fees that Vasquez incurred in bringing her motions to compel discovery responses. Velasco next argues the family court abused its discretion by “[d]eparting from a prior ruling without explanation or evidentiary support.” This argument is also not supported by any legal authority and is thus forfeited. (Singh, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 861.) Further, as discussed, the court did not “depart” from any prior ruling by imposing attorney’s fees incurred by Vasquez in prosecuting her motions to compel.2 Finally, Velasco appears to argue the court should have modified the attorney’s fees award because of “evidence in the record concerning his limited financial means.” Because he fails to cite any authority for modifying a previous fee award based on an inability to pay, this argument is also forfeited. (Singh, supra, 65 Cal.App.5th at p. 861.) More fundamentally, he points to no authority that required the family court to consider his ability to 2 Velasco has abandoned the other arguments made in his request for order filed in the family court by not raising them on appeal. 5 pay in the first place before ordering him to pay attorney’s fees as a sanction for discovery abuses under the Civil Discovery Act. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010-2023.050.) “ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, italics omitted; accord, Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) Velasco has not provided any basis for us to conclude the family court erred by denying his request to modify the May 2024 attorney’s fees award. DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. Vasquez is entitled to her costs on appeal. STONE, J. We concur: SEGAL, Acting P. J. FEUER, J. 6