Filed 6/6/23 Molina v. Davidsohn CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LARRY MOLINA, JR.,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEBBIE DAVIDSOHN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B318004

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 21AVRO00911)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Valerie L. Skeba, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Debbie Davidsohn, in pro. per., Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

Appellant Debbie Davidsohn appeals from a civil 

harassment restraining order. On appeal, Davidsohn contends 

there was no evidence to support issuing a restraining order 

against her under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.1 We 

conclude the record contains substantial evidence to support the 

trial court’s order and no error has been shown. Therefore, we 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2021, Molina filed a petition for a civil 

harassment restraining order against Davidsohn. The petition is 

not part of the record on appeal.

On September 23, 2021, a hearing was held on Molina’s 

petition, as well as on a petition for a restraining order filed by 

Davidsohn, which is also not part of the record on appeal. Molina 

testified that on July 26, 2021, he was talking with his daughter 

and heard a disturbance. He went to the garage and found 

Davidsohn arguing with Molina’s roommate. The roommate said 

he would move his truck, but Davidsohn talked over him and 

started yelling that she was going to call the sheriff. Davidsohn 

stepped onto Molina’s side of the property line. When Molina 

approached her and pointed for her to return to her property, she 

shoved him, punched him in the stomach, and ran off.

1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil 

Procedure unless otherwise stated. No respondent’s brief was 

filed on appeal. The notice of respondent’s failure to file a brief 

was returned to the court for insufficient address and inability to 

forward.
3

The court reviewed two videos of the incident. In the first 

video, the court noted that Davidsohn was screaming so loudly, 

the court could not make out what the parties were saying.

Davidsohn was standing on Molina’s property and said, “What 

are you going to [do] about it?” Molina said, “Go back on your 

side.” Davidsohn made a quick move with her arm, but Molina’s 

body blocked the view of exactly what happened, and Davidsohn 

ran off. In the second video, the court observed that Molina 

flinched, consistent with being hit. 

Molina’s roommate testified that he parked his truck to 

load furniture. Davidsohn came out to ask why he was parked 

where he was and began screaming at him. When Molina 

arrived, Davidsohn got in his face, hit Molina, and ran off. After 

waiting for the sheriff to arrive, Molina and his roommate

decided to call the police and report the incident themselves.

Davidsohn testified that on the day of the incident, she was 

one foot onto Molina’s property.

Molina also testified that Davidsohn looked over the fence 

from her property and looked inside his house. One time, he was 

enjoying his pool, watching a video on his phone, and a person 

from Davidsohn’s property was staring over the fence at him.

Davidsohn showed videos of a utility truck idling in front of 

her driveway. She showed a video of a person walking on her 

driveway. She showed two videos, both taken on February 3, 

2021, of a person standing at her door, knocking on her door, and 

then leaving.

The court found Davidsohn provoked the incident on 

July 26, 2021. The court also found Davidsohn’s complaints and 

evidence concerned minor things that most people would not 

think twice about, but had become something sinister to her that 
4

she attributed to Molina without a basis to support her 

conclusions. The court noted it could not instruct people to stop 

looking at a neighbor’s house from their own property. The court 

concluded that Davidsohn’s evidence did not support finding 

harassment by Molina, but instead showed she was doing the 

harassing. The court found Davidsohn’s behavior in the 

courtroom and in the video to be frightening, hostile, volatile, and 

irrational.

The court denied Davidsohn’s request for a restraining 

order as it was not supported by credible evidence, and granted 

Molina’s request for a permanent civil harassment restraining 

order for the maximum period of five years. The court stated 

Molina’s daughter would be included in the order. The order of 

protection signed by the court is not part of the record on appeal.

DISCUSSION

Davidsohn contends there is no substantial evidence to 

support the restraining order issued against her, but she has 

failed to provide necessary documents in the record or to state the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment in 

accordance with the standard of review. Nevertheless, we

conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s order.

Section 527.6, subdivision (a)(1), provides for injunctive 

relief from harassment as follows: “A person who has suffered

harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary

restraining order and an order after hearing prohibiting

harassment as provided in this section.” Section 527.6, 

subdivision (b)(3), provides: “ ‘Harassment’ is unlawful violence, 

a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of 
5

conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, 

annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate 

purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a 

reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and 

must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the 

petitioner.”

On review of the trial court’s issuance of a civil harassment

restraining order, we examine whether the express and implied 

factual findings that support the trial court’s order are justified 

by substantial evidence in the record. (See Bookout v. 

Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1137–1138.) “Under the 

substantial evidence standard of review, ‘we must consider all of 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, 

giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference, and resolving 

conflicts in support of the [findings]. [Citations.] [¶] It is not our 

task to weigh conflicts and disputes in the evidence; that is the 

province of the trier of fact. Our authority begins and ends with 

a determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is any

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, in support 

of the judgment.’ ” (ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc.

(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266, first italics added.) If the 

trial court made conclusions of law in the issuance of a

restraining order, “we review those conclusions of law de novo.”

(Westfour Corp. v. California First Bank (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 

1554, 1558.)

In this case, there was substantial evidence of unlawful 

violence. The trial court found Davidsohn stepped onto Molina’s 

property and made contact with her hand, such that Molina 

flinched away. In addition, Davidsohn was screaming at Molina 

and at his roommate. Her courtroom demeanor was equally 
6

volatile and aggressive. There was substantial evidence to 

support the trial court’s order, and we do not reweigh the 

evidence on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. No costs are awarded.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

KIM, J.