Zhang v. Chu CA2/8

Filed 10/1/25 Zhang v. Chu CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

YAN ZHANG, as Successor-in- B333356 interest, etc.,

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV00777) v.

EMMELYN CHU, as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Small, Judge. Affirmed. Yan Zhang, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Chang & Lee and Grace Lea Chang for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________________ Yan Zhang, as successor-in-interest for plaintiff Hinton Shih, appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after the court granted summary judgment in favor of Emmelyn Chu in her personal capacity and as the trustee of the Emmelyn Chu

Living Trust. Zhang contends the court erred in granting summary judgment in Chu’s favor because disputed issues of material fact exist in the parties’ litigation. Zhang, however, has not supplied us with critical portions of the trial 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 found no disputed issues of material fact exist as to any of the causes of action. 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 trial 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 trial court’s ruling. (Ibid.) It is, therefore, the appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record, and her failure to do so requires the reviewing court to resolve the appeal against her. (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 approved Chu’s proposed judgment. Although the judgment explains why the court granted summary judgment in Chu’s favor, the record lacks any other documents related to