Filed 9/21/22 LaMonica v. LaMonica CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

LAWRENCE LAMONICA,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHELLE LAMONICA,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Civil No. B317131

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2021-

00559187-CU-PT-VTA)

(Ventura County)

Michelle LaMonica (Michelle) appeals from the judgment 

after the trial court granted Lawrence LaMonica’s (Lawrence)1

request for a restraining order pursuant to the Elder Abuse and 

Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code,2

§ 15600 et seq.) We affirm. 

1 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid 

confusion. No disrespect is intended.

2 Further unspecified statutory references are to the 

Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lawrence and M.L. have been married for over 60 years. 

They are 86 years old and 83 years old, respectively. Michelle is 

the daughter of Lawrence and M.L. 

In October 2021, Lawrence petitioned for a restraining 

order against Michelle, protecting him and M.L. Lawrence filed a 

supporting declaration, in which he listed several alleged 

incidents of elder abuse by Michelle, including that she stole from 

them, “kidnapped” M.L., called the police on him multiple times, 

and showed up uninvited at his home “yelling and screaming” at 

him. Lawrence declared that he had previously filed a 

restraining order against Michelle in May 2020, and they

stipulated to an agreement. Michelle agreed to not contact M.L. 

and to stay away from Lawrence and M.L.’s residence, unless the 

contact was approved by Lawrence. The agreement was set to 

expire in December 2022.

Lawrence declared that in August 2021, Michelle violated 

the stay away order, “abducted” M.L. from his home, and took 

M.L. to her home in Northern California. During this time, 

Michelle had M.L., who suffered from dementia, execute a power 

of attorney authorizing Michelle to act on M.L.’s behalf. Michelle 

then attempted to file a restraining order, which was denied. A

few months later, Michelle went to Lawrence’s home without 

notice and attempted to fire M.L.’s caregiver, Eunice Lopez. 

The day before the court trial, Michelle filed evidentiary 

objections to Lawrence’s declaration, moved to strike portions of 

his declaration, and moved for a nonsuit. The trial court ruled 

that Michelle’s evidentiary objections and supporting 

declarations were untimely. 
3

On the day of trial, Lawrence submitted exhibits and a 

proposed witness list, which included Lawrence and Lopez as 

witnesses. Lawrence made an offer of proof as to Lopez’s 

testimony. Michelle objected, arguing that she never received a 

witness list or statement regarding Lopez’s testimony. Lawrence 

responded that he did not send her a witness list because 

Michelle said she would not appear at the trial and he “was just 

going to prove it up” at trial. 

The trial court noted that it “did not order the parties to 

obtain witness lists in advance of this hearing today.” The court 

further observed that Lopez “was referred to fairly extensively in 

Mr. LaMonica’s request [for a restraining order].” 

With respect to the trial exhibits, the court acknowledged 

that Lawrence did not exchange exhibits with Michelle, but it 

gave Michelle the option of proceeding with the trial if she waived 

the objection to timeliness of the exhibits. The court advised 

Michelle that she had “options.” The court advised: “If you feel 

like you can take a look at what [counsel] intends to offer in the 

next 30 minutes, we can take a break to see if you’re willing to 

look at that and proceed notwithstanding the fact you did not 

have it a week in advance.”

Lawrence then exchanged the exhibits with Michelle. After 

receiving the exhibits, Michelle told the trial judge, “We can 

proceed,” and waived objection to the timeliness of the exhibits. 

Lawrence and Lopez testified at trial. Lawrence testified to 

the incidents of elder abuse mentioned in his declaration. Lopez 

testified regarding an incident where she was awoken at 3:00 

a.m. and found Michelle outside Lawrence’s home. She also 

testified about another incident when Michelle called the police 

and took M.L. from Lawrence’s home. 
4

Michelle cross-examined both witnesses. She also testified 

and was given the opportunity to present a closing argument. 

The court also asked her several questions. 

At the conclusion of trial, the court granted the three-year 

restraining order against Michelle. The court found that 

Lawrence’s testimony “seemed credible and [it] question[ed] the 

credibility of the information that [Michelle] presented.” The 

court stated: “You took your mom to Northern California without 

permission. Necessitating your father to hire a private 

investigator. You didn’t return anyone’s calls. And you cannot 

do that. And all of that . . . you’re causing your father a great 

deal of emotional distress and mental suffering which is what the 

code is written for to prevent.” The court also found that Michelle 

“abducted” M.L. 

DISCUSSION

Evidentiary objections to Lawrence’s declaration

Michelle argues the trial court erred when it ruled that her 

evidentiary objections to Lawrence’s declaration were untimely 

and when it failed to rule on her motion to strike and for a 

nonsuit. These arguments lack merit. 

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 5.111, 

objections to a declaration must be filed “at least 2 court days 

before the time of the hearing, or any objection will be considered 

waived, and the declaration may be considered as evidence.”3 

Michelle did not file her objections until one day before trial. 

Therefore, her objections were untimely. 

3 California Rules of Court, rule 5.111 applies to family law 

matters, including requests for elder abuse restraining orders. 

(Super. Ct. Ventura County, Local Rules, rule 9.01.) 
5

Moreover, the court ruled on the admissibility of 

statements in Lawrence’s declaration. Before trial, Michelle 

orally objected to the declaration on the grounds that the 

declaration was vague, lacked foundation, and was based on 

hearsay. The court responded: “We have no jury here. So I’m the 

decider of both the facts and applying the law. So I will only 

consider that which is relevant and admissible.” We presume the 

court did so. (Evid. Code, § 664.) 

Furthermore, Lawrence testified about the incidents 

discussed in his declaration. During Lawrence’s direct 

examination, Michelle was not prevented from raising her 

objections. In fact, Michelle raised some objections to his 

testimony, and the court ruled on each objection. There was no 

error regarding the evidentiary objections. 

Lopez testimony

To the extent Michelle argues that the trial court erred 

when it allowed Lopez to testify at trial, there was no error. 

Michelle argues she had no notice of Lopez’s testimony nor 

had an opportunity to prepare for it. However, Lawrence did not 

exchange a witness list with Michelle because he relied upon her 

representation that she would not appear at trial. Moreover, the 

trial court did not order an exchange of witness lists before the 

trial. 

Michelle also argues that Lopez’s testimony was 

inadmissible because it was hearsay. Michelle could have raised

a hearsay objection but failed to do so. (See Roe v. Halbig (2018) 

29 Cal.App.5th 286, 309-310 [failure to object on hearsay grounds 

at trial forfeits the argument on appeal].) Michelle also had the 

opportunity to cross-examine Lopez’s testimony. There was no 

error in admitting Lopez’s testimony. 
6

Ruling on the restraining order

Michelle contends the trial court erred in granting the 

restraining order based upon a finding of elder abuse. We 

disagree. 

Elder abuse includes “[p]hysical abuse, neglect, 

abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with 

resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering,” “deprivation 

by a care custodian of goods or services that are necessary to 

avoid physical harm or mental suffering,” and “[f]inancial abuse.” 

(§ 15610.07, italics added.) “Mental suffering” means “fear, 

agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms of serious 

emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating 

behavior, threats, harassment, or by deceptive acts performed or 

false or misleading statements made with malicious intent to 

agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe depression or serious 

emotional distress of the elder or dependent adult.” (§ 15610.53.)

We review such protective orders for abuse of discretion 

and factual findings necessary to support the order are reviewed 

for substantial evidence. (Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 

Cal.App.4th 1131, 1137.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence 

in favor of the prevailing party and construe all legitimate and 

reasonable inferences in favor of upholding the trial court’s 

findings. (Id. at pp. 1137-1138.) 

Here, the trial court found that Michelle inflicted 

“emotional distress” and “mental suffering” on Lawrence, and 

“abducted” M.L. Substantial evidence supports these findings. 

Lawrence and Lopez testified to instances when Michelle 

abducted M.L. from their home, even after Michelle stipulated to 

a stay away order. Lawrence and Lopez also testified to other 

incidents of Michelle’s abusive behaviors, such as several 
7

instances when she showed up at Lawrence’s home without 

permission and when she called the police on them. Based on 

these factual findings, there was no abuse of discretion in 

granting the restraining order. 

Self-represented litigant

Michelle argues the trial court erred by refusing to assist 

her, a self-represented litigant, and deprived her of a fair trial by 

“misleading” her and “push[ing her] toward a procedural default.” 

This argument lacks merit. 

“[S]elf-represented litigants are not entitled to special 

exemptions from procedural rules” and are “‘entitled to treatment 

equal to that of a represented party.’” (Nuño v. California State

University, Bakersfield (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 799, 812.) 

However, trial judges “‘must acknowledge that in propria persona

litigants often do not have an attorney’s level of knowledge about 

the legal system and are more prone to misunderstanding the 

court’s requirements. . . . The judge should monitor to ensure the 

in propria persona litigant is not inadvertently misled, either by 

the represented party or by the court. While attorneys and 

judges commonly speak (and often write) in legal shorthand, 

when an in propria persona litigant is involved, special care 

should be used to make sure that verbal instructions given in 

court and written notices are clear and understandable by a 

layperson. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Here, the record reflects the court gave clear and 

understandable instructions regarding trial procedure, allowed 

Michelle the opportunity to look over trial exhibits, and allowed 

her to present and argue her case. Nothing in the record shows 

that Michelle was misled or deprived of a fair trial. 
8

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs 

on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second 

Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Charmaine H. Buehner, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Michelle LaMonica, in pro. per., for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

Rosen & Loeb and John T. Medlen for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.