Filed 10/18/22 Marriage of Moore Jelks and Jelks CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Cal ifornia 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(a). This opinion has 

not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of TANISHA 

MOORE-JELKS and GREGORY 

JELKS.

B315992

TANISHA MOORE-JELKS,

Appellant,

v.

GREGORY JELKS,

Respondent.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. TD037221

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Kimberly Dotson, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Tanisha Moore-Jelks, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Law Offices of Gina Marie Aguirre and Gina Marie Aguirre

for Respondent. 

_______________________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Tanisha Moore-Jelks appeals from the order granting 

Gregory Jelks’s motion to compel discovery responses and 

requiring Moore to pay $1,200 in attorney fees to Jelks’s 

attorney.1 Moore contends the trial court erred because she did in 

fact provide the information sought by Jelks’s discovery requests. 

Because Moore has not provided an adequate record to review her 

contention, and the limited record before us does not support her 

position on appeal, we affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties were married in 2004 and separated in 2012.

They have two minor children. In November 2015, the court 

signed the parties’ stipulated judgment for dissolution of 

marriage. The judgment stated, among other things, that the

child support awards were based on the present financial incomes

of the parties and the court reserved jurisdiction over the issue of

child support.

Apparently, in response to a pending child support dispute, 

Jelks propounded and served Moore with discovery requests.

According to the case summary in the clerk’s transcript, on 

December 3, 2020, Jelks filed a motion to compel discovery 

responses and for attorney fees. The motion was supported by the 

declaration of Gina Marie Aguirre—Jelks’s attorney—and a 

memorandum of points and authorities. The motion, Aguirre’s 

declaration, and the memorandum of points and authorities are 

1 For clarity, we refer to Tanisha Moore-Jelks as Moore and Gregory 

Jelks as Jelks.
3

not in the clerk’s transcript, although the documents are 

identified in the case summary.

2 In opposition to the motion, 

Moore filed a declaration that attached excerpts from an 

uncertified October 2020 deposition of Jelks, and Moore’s written 

responses to form interrogatories. Moore’s declaration and the 

deposition excerpts did not mention child support or the parties’ 

incomes. Indeed, other than attaching the deposition excerpts, 

Moore’s declaration did not contain any facts whatsoever. As for 

the excerpts, the deposition testimony related to efforts by Jelks 

to serve Moore with a restraining order during a custody 

exchange. As for her written responses, other than providing her 

name, current address, and noting that she lived with and 

provided support for the parties’ children, Moore objected to every 

interrogatory and did not provide the requested information.

A hearing on the motion was held on August 12, 2021, and 

a minute order was entered the same day. The court granted the 

motion and ordered Moore to produce the requested documents 

by September 10, 2021. The court also ordered Moore to pay 

Jelks’s attorney fees in the reduced amount of $1,200 by 

November 8, 2021. Moore timely appeals.

2 The case summary lists events and orders of the court. The omitted 

documents were also not contained in the document titled 

“Administrative Records” that was lodged by Moore and rejected by 

this court. Because this case does not involve an administrative 

proceeding, Moore’s reference to the August 12, 2021 proceeding as 

“administrative proceedings” in her notice designating the record on 

appeal was incorrect. In any event, as noted in our August 2, 2022 

order rejecting the lodged document, the contents of the 

“Administrative Records”—the minute order and transcript from the 

August 12, 2021 hearing—are part of the appellate record.
4

DISCUSSION

Moore contends the order should be reversed because she

did in fact provide the information that she had access to even

though it was not warranted. For the reasons set forth below, we

affirm the order.

As a court of review, we are bound by the rule of appellate

procedure that the order of the lower court is presumed correct

and an appellant challenging that order must overcome the

presumption by affirmatively demonstrating prejudicial

error. (See Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557,

564.) An appellant—even a self-represented litigant like Moore—

cannot carry this burden unless she provides the appellate court

with an adequate record of the lower court’s proceedings. (See

Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608; Nwosu v. Uba (2004)

122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) If the record is inadequate for

meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the trial court’s

decision should be affirmed. (Gee v. American Realty &

Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)

Here, the record on appeal does not contain all of the 

documents or other evidence submitted to the trial court by the 

parties. With the exception of the 2015 judgment, Moore’s 

declaration and attached deposition excerpts, Moore’s responses

to interrogatories, and August 12, 2021 minute order, Moore did 

not designate for inclusion in the clerk’s transcript any of the 

documents filed by Jelks with the court pertaining to his motion.

We also don’t have copies of the discovery requests that were 

propounded and served by Jelks, or the two meet and confer 

letters referenced by his counsel during the hearing. Without 

these documents, we decline to find error. (See Haywood v.

Superior Court (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 949, 955 [a reviewing court 
5

will “decline to find error on a silent record, and thus infer that 

substantial evidence” supports the trial court’s findings].)

In any event, Moore’s contention that she had provided the 

requested information is not supported by the limited record 

before us. At the hearing, Moore argued she was not required to 

provide Jelks with any financial information after the judgment 

was entered in 2015.3 She also acknowledged that although she 

had not provided Jelks with copies of her paycheck stubs, she was 

now willing to do so. And, as noted, other than providing her 

name, current address, and stating that she lived with and 

provided support for the parties’ children, Moore objected to every 

interrogatory and did not provide the requested information. 

In sum, because we cannot properly determine whether the

court erroneously granted Jelks’s motion to compel discovery 

responses and for attorney fees, we must affirm the order.

3 At the hearing, the court rejected this argument and explained that 

the parties’ judgment did not provide for the post-judgment waiver of 

discovery rights and requests for attorney fees.
6

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Respondent Gregory Jelks shall

recover his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

RICHARDSON (ANNE K.), J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.