Opinion
F084742
10-26-2023
HUNG QUOC DUONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant and Respondent.
Hung Quoc Duong, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Jerry J. Deschler, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. 18CECG03478. D. Tyler Tharpe, Judge.
Hung Quoc Duong, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Jerry J. Deschler, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SNAUFFER, J.
Hung Quoc Duong appeals from a judgment rendered in favor of the Board of Trustees of California State University (CSU). The judgment states, "having granted summary judgment in favor of [CSU]" "Duong shall recover nothing . _."
Aside from the parties' briefs, the record contains little else. There is no complaint. There is no evidence. There is no motion. There is no ruling or order. We must affirm because there is essentially no record to review.
BACKGROUND
Because the record provides no information, the following summary is based on Duong's briefing and is offered solely to contextualize the appeal.
Duong was apparently employed as a lecturer at California State University, Fresno. Dissatisfied with his employment, he filed some sort of complaint against the university.
The complaint is not in the record.
The Attorney General eventually moved for summary judgment. A purported tentative ruling cites Duong's failure to assert any adverse action and his failure to produce admissible evidence. Summary judgment was granted in CSU's favor.
The purported tentative ruling is in Duong's opening brief. Duong's reproduction lacks any indicia of reliability, although we doubt the tentative ruling is manufactured. We do not know if the tentative ruling became final.
DISCUSSION
"[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment." (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608609.)"' "A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed."' [Citation.] 'Consequently, [the appellant] has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant]." '" (Id. at p. 609.)
Duong has failed to provide an adequate record for review. We have considered the propriety of augmenting the record on the court's own motion and decline to do so. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a); cf. Sanchez v. Westlake Services, LLC (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1106 [" 'there is a limit to our willingness to salvage appeals' "].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to CSU.
WE CONCUR: PENA, Acting P. J., MEEHAN, J.