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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
4