How have courts interpreted the rule of appellate review in this case?

Another rule of appellate review relevant to this case is the principle that appellate courts presume the trial court's order is correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) This presumption produces the corollary that when the appellate record is silent on a matter, the reviewing court must indulge all intendments and presumptions that support the order or judgment. (Ibid.) The intendments and presumptions indulged by the appellate court include inferring the trial court made implied findings of fact that are consistent with its order, provided such implied findings are supported by substantial

Page 7

evidence. (See Smith v. Adventist Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 729, 745 [implied finding inferred by appellate court only if supported by substantial evidence].)

Plaintiffs argue the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider and address one of the grounds for their motion. First, plaintiffs have cited no authority for the proposition that a trial court deciding a motion is obligated to address in its written decision each ground set forth in the motion. (See Lavine v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1026 [a statement of decision is neither required nor available upon a decision of a motion].) Thus, plaintiffs have not shown that the trial court violated its legal duty by failing to address a ground for the motion.