Berman

DISCUSSION

We are unable to conduct an appropriate review of the trial court’s ruling because we do not have an adequate record on appeal. As plaintiff appropriately notes, we review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo to determine whether the moving party met his, her, its, or their burden of proof. (Lewis v. County of Sacramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 116.) In that vein, we assume the role of the trial court by independently examining the record and evaluate the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, not its rationale. (Moore v. William Jessup University (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 427, 433.) “It is a fundamental principle of appellate law that the lower court’s judgment is presumed to be correct. An appellant has the burden to overcome the presumption of

2 correctness and show prejudicial error.” (Silva v. See’s Candy Shops, Inc. (2016) 7 Cal.App.5th 235, 260, disapproved on another ground in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58, 77.) The appellant’s appendix contains only two documents: the order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the order granting the motion for summary judgment. We are unable to conduct a de novo review of…