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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered 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 OPINION1

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

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

domestic violence 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 resolve 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, Sandoval 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 humiliate 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 for 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 congregation

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 temporary 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 until 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. Several 
3

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 Sandoval incurred because of Masalta. Masalta, who was 

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

The trial court granted Sandoval’s request and issued a three-year 

DVRO against Masalta. The court found that he engaged in conduct 

constituting abuse under the Act and that his actions after the temporary 

restraining order, including sending the church letter, sufficed to give 

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

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

Masalta 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 request 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 adequate 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 burden 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. Masalta A167739