Green

DISCUSSION

A judgment is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) As a result, it is an appellant’s fundamental burden to overcome this presumption with an affirmative demonstration of error; an appellant must accordingly provide a sufficient record to support any claim of error. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296; Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324). Otherwise, the claim of error is forfeited and the trial court is affirmed. (Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) Even though we exercise de novo review of a ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court is not a “potted plant” to be disregarded because our role is to review judicial rulings for error, not make a ruling in the first instance; thus, we will not consider evidence that was not presented to the trial court. (Uriarte v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 780, 791.) Rather,

1 The same shortcoming is true of the documents plaintiff has appended to his briefing on appeal. We thus disregard his reference to facts contained…