Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. SC090797, John H. Reid, Judge.
Steven R. Grayson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Hanger, Steinberg, Shapiro & Ash and John A. Demarest for Defendant and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
Plaintiff and appellant Steven R. Grayson appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Jeralyn Smith. Grayson contends a triable issue of fact exists whether Smith made defamatory statements about Grayson to several individuals. Grayson failed to designate the reporter’s transcript of the trial court proceedings on the summary judgment motion for purposes of the record on appeal. Appellant’s appendix contains none of the pleadings or motion papers.
We ordered the parties to brief the issues of whether the failure to designate a reporter’s transcript warrants affirmance based on the inadequacy of the record and the effect of Grayson’s failure to include any of the relevant papers as part of the record. (Order re: Briefing, filed July 15, 2010.) Grayson did not file a motion to augment the record to include the relevant papers and the reporter’s transcript of the hearing. He responded that a reporter’s transcript was not necessary because nothing of substance happened at any hearing. He did not address the issue of his failure to include in the record any of the relevant papers. Smith responded that the record is inadequate and affirmance is required.
We affirm on the basis the record is inadequate to establish reversible error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.)
As Grayson failed to include any relevant papers in the record on appeal, we are unable to set forth a statement of the facts and proceedings in the trial court.
Standard of Review
“[W]e review the grant of summary judgment de novo. [Citation.] In performing our independent review, we conduct the same procedure used by the trial court. We examine (1) the pleadings to determine the elements of the claim for which the party seeks relief; (2) the summary judgment motion to determine if movant established facts justifying judgment in its favor; and (3) the opposition to the motion—assuming movant met its initial burden—to ‘decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material fact issue. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Y.K.A. Industries, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of City of San Jose (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 339, 354.)
“It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.” (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) “‘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....’ (Orig. italics.) [Citation.]” (Rossiterv.Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) In the absence of a proper record on appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and must be affirmed. (Maria P. v. Riles, supra, 43 Cal.3d at pp. 1295-1296.)
Inadequate Record
Without the pleadings, motion papers, including the affidavits and other exhibits, and reporter’s transcript of the hearing, Grayson cannot meet his burden of showing reversible error. It is impossible for this court to review the motion de novo and determine if triable issues of fact exist. In the absence of an adequate record, we must indulge all inferences to support the order challenged on appeal and presume the trial court properly concluded that no triable issues of material facts exist.
The parties and a court reporter were present at the hearing on the summary judgment motion. A reporter’s transcript would reveal the parties’ arguments to the court and any concessions concerning the facts and issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Jeralyn Smith is awarded her costs on appeal.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J., MOSK, J.