Cox v. Fayad CA4/3

Opinion

Filed 8/27/26 Cox v. Fayad CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ALEXANDER M. COX, Plaintiff and Appellant, G065433 v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01361727) FADY FAYAD, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Erick L. Larsh, Judge. Affirmed. Alexander M. Cox in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kelly, Trotter & Franzen and David P. Pruett for Defendant and Respondent. Alexander Cox contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in Dr. Fady Fayad’s favor. Cox, however, has not supplied us with critical portions of the court record, including any pleading or any of the papers or evidence for the summary judgment motion. Therefore, we cannot evaluate whether the court correctly granted Dr. Fayad’s motion for summary judgment. Because we must presume the court’s ruling was correct in the absence of a showing to the contrary, we affirm. We presume that an appealed judgment is correct. (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) To overcome this presumption, the appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error and provide an adequate record on appeal. (Ibid.) We will make all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s ruling “‘[i]n the absence of a contrary showing in the record.’” (Ibid.) If any evidence, arguments, or other matters could have been presented to the court that would have justified the challenged ruling, we will presume those matters were presented. (Ibid.) It follows from this rule that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults, and we will affirm the court’s ruling. (Ibid.) It is, therefore, the appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record, and his failure to do so requires the reviewing court to resolve the appeal against him. (Ibid.) Here, the appellate record includes only a copy of the trial court’s register of actions, the judgment, and a minute order in which the court granted Dr. Fayad’s motion for summary judgment. Although the judgment explains why the court granted summary judgment in Dr. Fayad’s favor, the record lacks any other documents related to the proceedings on Dr. Fayad’s summary judgment motion. For instance, the record does not include copies of the operative pleading, Dr. Fayad’s motion for summary judgment, Dr. Fayad’s separate statement, any evidence Dr. Fayad submitted in support of 2 his summary judgment motion, Cox’s opposition to summary judgment, or any evidence Cox submitted in support of his opposition. Cox has attached what appears to be medical documents to his reply brief. There is nothing to indicate these documents were filed below or considered by the court before it ruled on Fayad’s summary judgment motion. We therefore cannot consider the medical documents attached to Cox’s reply brief. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 [the appellate court typically will consider only matters that were part of the record when the judgment was entered].) “[T]he resulting lack of a verbatim record of [trial court proceedings] will frequently be fatal to a litigant’s ability to have his or her claims of trial court error resolved on the merits by an appellate court.” (Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 608.) That is the case here. Without copies of the complaint or any of the summary judgment papers that were filed below, we lack a record of what occurred below in connection with Dr. Fayad’s summary judgment motion, aside from the judgment explaining why the court granted the motion. We therefore cannot evaluate whether the court correctly found there were no disputed issues of material fact as to any of the causes of action asserted in the operative pleading. (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476 [a trial court may grant “summary judgment where no triable issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”].) Because we cannot meaningfully review the court’s decision to grant summary judgment in Dr. Fayad’s favor, we must presume the record supports that decision and affirm the judgment. (Jameson, at p. 609.)

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Dr. Fayad is entitled to his costs on appeal.

DELANEY, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOODING, J.

SCOTT, J.