Clayborn v. Marmureanu CA2/2

Filed 6/27/25 Clayborn v. Marmureanu CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

KIMBERLY CLAYBORN, B337156

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19STCV42457)

ALEXANDER R. MARMUREANU,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Theresa M. Traber, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Theida Salazar and Theida Salazar for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, David J. Rubaum, Ryan P. Deane; Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza and Paul D. Kind for Defendant and Respondent. ______________________________________

Kimberly Clayborn sued Alexander Marmureanu, M.D., for medical malpractice. The trial court granted Dr. Marmureanu’s motion for summary judgment. Clayborn appealed the ensuing judgment. She maintains that she “has properly asserted and proven her claims.” Clayborn presented no evidentiary record for review. We must presume that the record before the trial court supports the judgment. Parties must present “admissible evidence” to support and oppose summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (d).) We review the record de novo to determine if triable issues of material fact exist. (Shin v. Ahn (2007) 42 Cal.4th 482, 499.) We are foreclosed from conducting appellate review here. Our review depends on the appellant’s compliance with the prerequisite of supplying a record. “A fundamental principle of appellate practice is that an appellant ‘ “must affirmatively show error by an adequate record. . . . ‘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.’ ” ’ ” (Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532; Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295–1296 [failure to provide an adequate record requires the appellate court to resolve issues against the appellant].) Clayborn’s notice designating the record on appeal indicated that she would not provide an appellant’s appendix for this court’s review. Instead, she requested preparation of a clerk’s transcript; however, she did not ask the clerk to include relevant documents—the complaint, the motion for summary judgment, her opposition to the motion, and the evidence in support of or against summary judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.122(a), (b)(3)(A)–(B) [notice must designate documents in a