1 Filed 10/9/13 Jefferson v. Haden CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE

EDWARD JAMES JEFFERSON,
Plaintiff and Appellant, A137676
v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC1201459) DOUG HADEN et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

___________________ __________________/

Plaintiff Edward James Jefferson sued defendants Do ug and Gail Haden (collectively defendants) alleging federal ci vil rights violations and seeking punitive damages. The trial court sustained defend ants’ demurrer to the operative complaint
without leave to amend and dismissed it. Jefferson appeals. He contends his complaint was timely filed and properly pleaded a punitive damages clai m. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND Jefferson filed a complaint against defendant s in June 2012. In his operative first amended complaint, Jefferson alleged he was a certified deputy voter registrar engaging in voter registration at a Walnut Creek farmer ’s market in 2009 when defendants ordered2 him to leave and had him arre sted and prosecuted in vi olation of his civil rights. 1 Defendants demurred to the operative co mplaint arguing, among other things, that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants also moved to strike the punitive damages allegations. Jefferson opposed the de murrer and motion to strike. Following a hearing, the court sustained the de murrer without leav e to amend.
DISCUSSION “‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct . All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.” [Citation.] [Citations.]’ ‘A necessary corollary to this rule is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults a nd the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.’ [Citations.]” ( Gee v. American Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) “Failu re to provide an adequate record on an issue requires
that the issue be resolved against plaintiff.” ( Hernandez v. Californ ia Hospital Medical
Center (2000) 78 Cal.Ap p.4th 498, 502.) The record Jefferson has provided lacks ev en the basic elements required by the rules. An appellant’s appendix is require d to contain “[a]ll items required by rule 8.122(b)(1), showing the dates required by rule 8.122(b)(2)[.]” (Rule 8.124(b)(1)(A).) This includes any “judgment and/or order appe aled from and any notice of its entry,” the register of actions, and documents “necessary for proper consideration of the issues, including, for an appellant’s appendix, any item that the appellant should reasonably assume the respondent will rely on.” (Rule 8.124(b)(1)(B).) In addition, rule 8.122(b)(2)

1 Jefferson has failed to provide this cour t with a record containing even the most basic required elements, such as the order from which his appeal is taken and the superior court’s register of actions. (Cal. Ru les of Court, rules 8.122(b)(1)(C), (E), 8.124(b)(1)(A).) Our factual and procedural su mmary sets forth what we have been able to determine from the few do cuments in the appendix and from the superior court’s register of actions, for which we have had to consult the court’s web site. All “rule” references are to the Calif ornia Rules of Court.3 requires that each document “show the date ne cessary to determine the timeliness of the appeal[.]” Jefferson’s appendix does not contain the “judgment and/or order appealed from[,]” the register of actions, or a comple te copy of defendants’ demurrer as required by rules 8.122(b)(1) and 8.124(b). In additi on, many of the documents in the appendix are not file-stamped, or have an illegible f ile stamp. We are aware of a hearing on
defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike an d of the order Jefferson is appealing only from our independent consultation of the register of actions on the trial court’s web site. The record thus provides virtua lly no basis for review of the trial court’s decision. As a result, we have no choice but to affirm the court’s ruling. ( Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“ A violation of the rules of court may result in . . . the waiver of the arguments made therein, the im position of fines and/or the dismissal of the appeal”].)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Defenda nts are entitled to costs on appeal.

_ ____________ ____________ Jones, P.J.

We concur:

_____________ ___________ Simons, J.

________________ ________ Bruiniers, J.