McCormick

DISCUSSION

As best we can tell, Woodle makes three arguments on appeal: (1) the court’s damages award is not supported by substantial evidence, (2) the court erred by refusing to admit certain exhibits into evidence at trial, and (3) the court erroneously denied Woodle’s ex parte application for a stay. The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that “judgments and orders are presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown. [Citation.] Consequently, appellant has the burden of providing an adequate record. [Citations.] Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant. [Citation.] Without a record, either by transcript or settled statement, a reviewing court must make all presumptions in favor of the validity of the judgment.” (Randall v. Mousseau (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 929, 935.) Despite being represented by counsel on appeal, Woodle has wholly failed to meet her burden to provide an adequate record for review. As Woodle correctly notes, we review the trial court’s factual findings—including its determination of damages—for substantial evidence. (Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873–874.) To perform…