1

Filed 3/5/24 Sandoval v. Masalta CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or

or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

GLORIA CASTRO SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
FLOYD MASALTA,

Defendant and Appellant. A167739

(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 17

- FAM

- 02440)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

Defendant Floyd Masalta, appearing in propria persona, appeals from a

trial court order granting the request of plaintiff Gloria Sandoval for a

domestic vio lence restraining order (DVRO) against him under the Domestic

Violence Prevention Act (Act) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.). Masalta claims the

court abused its discretion in various respects by issuing a DVRO and erred

by awarding attorney fees to Sandoval

. 2 But he has failed to carry his

appellate burden of demonstrating reversible error because he has not

provided a record sufficient to evaluate the court’s rulings. (See Ballard v.

Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574. ) Accordingly, we affirm.

1 We res olve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(2).

2 Sandoval did not file a respondent’s brief.2

In 2016, Sa ndoval met Masalta, who was married, at the church they

both attended. They dated for about 18 months. Sandoval testified that from

the beginning of their relationship, Masalta was controlling and abusive, and

he forced her to have sex with him. He also threatened her, including by

indicating he would humiliat e her in front of other church members if she left

him

. Sandoval testified that in September 2017, Masalta surprised her in a

Costco parking lot and grabbed her cell phone when she tried to call f or help.

A bystander helped her retrieve the phone, and she called the police after she

drove away and Masalta followed her. When the police arrived, Sandoval

declined to have Masalta arrested. Later that month, however, she filed a

DVRO request

. A temporary restraining order issued , and Masalta was served with it

on October 30, 2017. Sandoval testified that later that night, she learned he

had sent a letter to their pastor and members of their congreg ation

containing information that made her “distraught.” After this incident,

Masalta sent her disturbing text messages and emails , and she worried that

he was following her.

In June 2018, Sandoval reported to the police that Masalta had

violated the t emporary restraining order , initiating a criminal case against

him in Santa Clara County. Meanwhile, the hearing on Sandoval’s DVRO

request was continued numerous times, including because of the criminal

case and the COVID

- 19 pandemic , and did not occur u ntil March 2023.

At the March 2023 hearing, Sandoval testified to the incidents set forth

above. She stated she had moved out of the area because she did not feel

safe

. Although she had not had any contact with Masalta since 2018 , she was

still afraid of him and worried that he would continue to harass her. Several3

exhibits were admitted into evidence, including the letter Masalta sent to

church members ; text messages and emails ; and evidence of attorney fees

and other expenses S andoval incurred because of Masalt a. Masalta , who was

represented by counsel below, did not testify or offer any evidence.

T he trial court granted Sandoval’s request and issued a three

- year

DVRO against Masalta

. T he court found that he engaged in conduct

constituting abuse under th e Act and that his actio ns after the temporary

restrai ning order, including sending the church letter, sufficed to give

Sandoval “a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.” The court al so

awarded her a bout $12,600 in expenses, including $ 10,500 in attorney fees.

Mas alta elected to proceed by clerk’s transcript in his notice

designating the record on appeal, but he did not request any documents other

than those required under California Rules of Court, rule 8.122(b)

. Thus, the

record before us does not contain documents predating the March 2023

hearing, including the DVRO req uest itself. Nor did Masalta ask that any of

the exhibits admitted at that hearing be transmitted to this court.

“ ‘It is the duty of an appellant to provide an adequate record to the

[appellate] court establishing error. Failure to provide an adequat e record on

an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the] appellant.

[Citation.]’ [Citation.] This principle stems from the well

- established rule of

appellate review that a judgment or order is presumed correct and the

appellant has the bur den of demonstrating prejudicial error.” ( Hotels

Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.)

Lacking the DVRO request and all the evidence the trial court considered in

issuing the DVRO and awarding attorney fees, we cannot evaluate Masalta’s

claims. Therefore, we must presume the court’s order is correct. (See, e.g.,4

Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295

– 1296; Gee v. American

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

The trial court’s March 8 , 2023 order is affirmed. Sandoval is entitled

to her costs on appeal, if any.5 _________________________ Humes, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________ Banke, J.

_________________________ Castro, J.*

*Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Alameda , assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Sandoval v. Masal t a A16773 9