Filed 8/20/14 Donaldson v. Ojaroodi CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

CHARLES O. DONALDSON, JR.,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
MOHAMMAD OJAROODI,
Defendant and Appellant. B251472
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VS023783)

APPEAL from an order of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County, Debra Cole-Hall, Judge. Affirmed. Charles O. Donaldson, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. Mohammed Ojaroodi, in pro. pe r., for Defendant and Appellant.

_____________ ____________2 Appellant Mohammed Ojaroodi appeals from th e entry of a civil restraining order against him in favor of his neighbor. Fi nding no grounds for re versal, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROD CEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant Ojaroodi and his ne ighbor respondent Charles Donaldson, Jr. have been in a dispute for some years, culminating in Donaldson’s request for a temporary restraining order in 2012. After a series of continuances while related criminal charges proceeded, the restraining order came on for hearing on August 8, 2013.
Donaldson testified that Ojaroodi had thrown gasoline on Donaldson’s door, had threatened him and his wife, a nd threatened to shoot him. Donaldson asserted he was in fear for his life, and that of his wife and gr andchildren. Donalds on also testified that Ojaroodi had sprayed water on him and his wife and ca lled him offensive names. Ojaroodi was represented by counsel at th e hearing. Counsel asserted the dispute concerned cigarette smoke coming from Dona ldson’s garage onto Ojaroodi’s property, and denied the allegations of th reats and use of gasoline. Oj aroodi testified that he had
not made the threat asserted by Donaldson, but instead had tried to work out a solution
for the smoke. He also denied putting gasoline on the door. The court indicated its intention to gr ant the restraining order, at which point Ojaroodi asked to bring to the court’s atten tion a conflict in the statements in the police report; his counsel made no requ est. The court made no ruling on the issue, and, after the parties discussed the terms of the order, issued an order with a term of three years. Ojaroodi timely appealed.

DISCUSSION On appeal, Ojaroodi, representing himself, argues that the trial court erred because
it: failed to issue a statement of decision; granted the orde r without suffici ent evidence;
and refused to consider impeachment evidence.3 1. Standard of Review
We review the trial court’s decision to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the ruling; “we review th e evidence before th e court in accordance with the customary rules of appellate revi ew. We resolve all factual conflicts and questions of credibility in favor of the prev ailing party and indulge in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the finding of the trial court if it is supported by substantial evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value.” ( Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 762.)

2. Statement of Decision Code of Civil Procedure, Section 632, 1 requires the court to issue a statement of decision, explaining the basis for its decision , when requested by a party appearing at the
trial. In a case such as th is, where the trial was conclude d within one calendar day, the request must be made prior to the s ubmission of the matter for decision. 2 The record of this proceeding does not indicate any request by counsel for Ojaroodi, or by Ojaroodi himself, for a statemen t of decision. Accordingly, the court did

not err.

1 All further statutory references, unless ot herwise noted, are to the Code of Civil Procedure

.
2 “ In superior courts, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, written findings of fact and conclusions of law sha ll not be required. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual a nd legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upo n the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision unless the trial is conc luded within one calendar day or in less than eight hours over more than one day in whic h event the request must be made prior to the submission of the matter for decision. The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision. After a party has requested the statemen t, any party may make proposals as to the content of the statement of decision. [¶] The statement of decision shall be in writing, unless the parties appearing at trial agree otherwise; ho wever, when the trial is concluded within one calendar day or in less than 8 hours over more than one day, the statement of decision may be made orally on the record in the presence of the parties.”4 3. Sufficiency of the Evidence Section 527.6 provides thr ee grounds for possible relief: unlawful violence (527.6, subd. (b)(1)); a credible threat of violence (527.6, su bd. (b)(2)); or ha rassment (527.6, subd. (b)(3)). Although the court did not indicate in its ruling the ground on which it based its decision, the testimony of Donaldso n, which the trial court believed, pointed most directly to a finding of a credible threat of violence. This ground requires cl ear and convincing evidence of a “knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would plac e a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her imme diate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose.” (527.6, subd. (b)(3).) Here, there was sufficient evidence of a threat to kill, which placed Donaldson in fear of his own safety as well as that of his family. (See, e.g.,
USS-Posco Industri es v. Edwards (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 436 [party told co-workers he had a gun and would kill them]. ) Moreover, Donaldson also testified that gasoline had been placed on his door, raising a reasonable fear of explosion. Taken together, and resolving all credibility questions in favor of the prevailing party, as we must, this evidence is sufficient to support the order.

4. Impeachment Evidence Ojaroodi asserts the court erred in ex cluding prior inconsistent statements by Donaldson contained in a poli ce report. While the court is required to receive relevant testimony, and to give a party charged with harassment th e opportunity to present his or her case ( Ensworth v. Mullvain (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1110), the party seeking to introduce evidence must object to its exclusion and make known to the trial court the
substance of the excluded eviden ce, along with its relevance. ( Malatka v. Helm (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1086.) Here, the record is silent. Ojaroodi’s counsel did not request cross-examination of Donaldson, nor did he request that the court consider statem ents in the police report in any manner. While Ojaroodi himself suggest ed there was a conflict in the statements, counsel did not proffer the report or indicate what those conflicting st atements were. The5 record on appeal does not co ntain the police report, or any information pertaining to it. As a result, not only did Ojarood i fail to adequately raise the issue at the trial court, he has failed to provide any basis for us to de termine whether the evidence was relevant impeachment.

DISPOSITION The issuance of the restraining order is affirmed. Respondent is to recover his costs on appeal.

ZELON, J.

We concur:

PERLUSS, P. J.

WOODS, J.