Fisher

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in ruling the Act preempted their state law claims. They assert: “[B]ecause [defendant] already received the 401(k) disbursement, [the Act] does not apply to [plaintiffs’] state law claims.” Defendant contends plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate record sufficient to show error. We agree with defendant. “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.] ‘This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.’ [Citations.] ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. . . .’ [Citation.] ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018)…