Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. 314530
Siggins, J.
Lloyd W. Schloegel appeals from an order dismissing this action for his failure to bring it to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310, 583.360.) We affirm.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
This is the second appeal by Mr. Schloegel in this case. In ruling on Mr. Schloegel’s previous appeal, we were compelled to deem his assertions abandoned due to his failure, after repeated attempts, to file an opening brief sufficient to permit our meaningful review of the trial court proceedings. In discussing the deficiencies in Mr. Schloegel’s briefing, we explained: “Although Mr. Schloegel cites to some other documents he filed in the superior court action, many of his factual assertions are still without citation to, and/or support in, the limited record provided to us. It is at least equally problematic that his brief is devoid of either citation to pertinent legal authority or cogent argument relating controlling legal principles to the facts.” (Schloegel v. Schloegel (Feb. 21, 2007, A114234 [nonpub. opn.], typed opn. at p. 2.)
Unfortunately, Mr. Schloegel’s brief in this appeal suffers the same defects. His contentions, to the extent they are relevant to the order of dismissal, seem to focus on the propriety of the court’s rejection of his attempts to obtain defaults from various defendants. It is impossible for us to ascertain from the briefing and record provided by Mr. Schloegel whether the court properly rejected those attempts, or whether it otherwise erred when it dismissed this case pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360. “ ‘ “It is elementary that the burden is on an appellant to show sufficient basis for the reversal of the order or judgment from which he appeals.” . . . “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the action of the trial court will be indulged by an appellate court.” . . . “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.” ’ ” (Buckhart v. San Francisco Residential Rent etc., Bd. (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1036; see also Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119-1120 [inadequate briefing]; Cosenza v. Kramer (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1100, 1102 [inadequate record].) As Mr. Schloegel has not shown a basis for reversal, we must presume the trial court ruled correctly and affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order of dismissal is affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, Acting P.J., Jenkins, J.