Filed 3/27/14 C ampos v. Stone 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ELIZABETH CAMPOS

,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ROB ERT STONE

,

Defendant and Respondent. 2d Civil No. B 249029

(Super. Ct. No. 56

- 2013

- 00435632

-

CU

- HR

- VTA )

(Ventura County)

Plaintiff Elizabeth Campos appeals a judgment denying h er application for

a harassment injunction (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6) a gainst defendant Robert Stone

. We

conclude, among other things

, that : 1) Campos has not shown that the trial court was

bias ed against h er , and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying injunctive

relief. We affirm.

FACTS

Campos and Sto ne are neighbors. Campos installed security ca meras and

lights on her house. Stone was upset because he claimed one of those cameras " points

directly at the front door " of his house.

Campos filed a request for a temporary restraining order claiming tha t

Stone ha d harassed and threatened her. The trial court issued a temporary restraining

order against Stone a nd set the case for a hearing.2

. Campos testified that " someo ne had dumped a bucket of .

. . gasoline on the

front of [her] pr operty

. . . . " She believed it was Stone. She said Stone had " yanked out "

lights she had installed on her house, and that Stone and his friends had brandished rifles

and made statements that frightened her.

Stone testif

ied that Campos ' s accusations were not true. He sai d,

" [A] pparently she has a paranoia of people breaking into her house

. . . . I ' ve never ever

been on her property.

. . . I really try to avoid this woman to the best of my ability. " He

said Campos ' s testimony about the rifle incident " is a total lie. " He said, " Maybe she saw

us putting guns in the back of the truck to go target shooting one day, but that is the

extent of it. "

The trial court found no evidence to support an injunction against Stone. It

said there was no " conduct that is seriously hara ssing " and no " credible threat of violence

that a reasonable person would be in fear of their safety. "

DISCUSSION

Injunctive Relief

for Harassment

Campos contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying h er

request for injunctive relief against S tone

. She c laims the record shows the court was

biased against h er. We disagree.

" A person wh o has suffered harassment .

. . may seek a temporary

restraining order and an injunction prohibiting [ that conduct ]

. " (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6

,

subd. (a) (1)

. ) The trial court may issue a temporary restraining order where there is

" reasonable proof of harassment of the petitioner by the respondent, and that great or

irreparable harm would result to the petitioner. " ( Id.

, subd. (d).)

The granting o r denying of injunctive relief " rests within the sound

discretion of the trial court and may not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of

discretion. " ( California Assn. of Dispensing Opticians v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc.

(1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 419, 425.)

We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment . An

appellate court " must resolve all evidentiary conflicts in fa vor of the prevailing3

.

party

. . . . " ( Burch v. Premier Homes, LLC (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 730, 744.) " We may

not insert oursel ves as the trier of fact and reweigh the evidence. " ( Id. at p. 745.) The

trial court decides the credibility of the witnesses. ( Fredrics v. Paige (1994) 29

Cal.App.4th 1642, 1647; Church of Merciful Saviour v. Volunteers of America (1960)

184 Cal.App.2d 851, 856.)

Bias

Campos c ontends th e trial court was biased against her. This claim is

without merit. It is well established that " numerous and continuous rulings against a

litigant, even when erroneous, form no ground for a charge of bias or prejudice. "

( Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 781, 795

- 796.) The

appellant must cite to the record to support a claim of bias. ( I bi d

. ) Campos has not done

so, and the record refutes her claims. The trial court allowed her a complete opportunity

to testify. It patiently considered every claim she made and it asked relevant questions.

The court's decision was based on the testimony at the hearing. Campos has not shown

that it relied on any inadmissible matter in ruling against her.

Campos notes that in Stone's response to the request for a restraining order

,

he checked the box indicating that he agreed with " the orders that are requested. " She

claims the trial court showed bias by intervening on Stone ' s behalf to allow him to chang e

that response.

But the record shows the trial court asked Stone about this response to

clarify his position on granting a restraining order. The court: " She ' s asking for a civil

restraining order for up to three years. It says that you ' re in agreeme nt with that request? "

Stone answered: " No, not at all

. . . . I ' m opposed to that request. I didn ' t realize the

checking of that particular [box] was jeopardizing my situation with her. " Stone

appeared in pro pria per sona and had mistake nly check ed tha t box. The court properly

questioned him about his position on the restraining order. Campos has not shown any

evidence of bias.4

. Campos claims the court reporter prepared an " adulterated transcript. " But

the court reporter certified the transcript wa s a " full, true and correc t transcript of the

proceedings

. . . . " Campos has not shown that the reporter ' s certificate was inaccurate.

Campos claims the trial court discriminated against her because of her

disability. But she did not raise an objection on this ground at the hearing

, and th e

transcript of the hearing does not support her claims

.

Abuse of Discretion

Campos contends the trial court abused its discretion by not grant ing

injunctive relief against Stone. We disagree.

In h er " Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders

, " Campos alleged

Stone made threats and engag ed in a pattern of harassment. But the trial court could

reasonably f

i nd the evidence did not support those allegations.

Campos testified that when she came home from a doct or ' s appointment she

discovered that " someone had dumped a bucket of .

. . gasoline on the front of [her]

property

. . . . " She said, " [I] t is someone who came from across the street from [Stone ' s]

direction. " S he conceded, however, that " [t]here ' s no wa y to identif y whether it was

[Stone] or not

. . . . " An injunction must be based on evidence, not speculation. ( F LIR

Systems, Inc. v. Parrish (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1277.)

Campos testified Stone had objected to the lights she installed on her

pro perty. She claimed some of those lights were " yanked out " and she had a photo of

Stone pulling lights off her house. But when the court asked if she had " any pictures of

that, " s he admitted

, " No

. " Stone denied he r allegations.

Campos testified that a year earlier Stone and his friends " were waiving

rifles in the air and calling out [her] name. " She responded, " Big deal. You ' re going

hunting. " She said Stone remarked

, " I don ' t kill animals

, " and Stone and his friends

" laughed. " She testified " [T] hat ' s very frightening to me. "

Stone denied her allegations. He testified " T here is absolutely .

. . not h ing

true about what she said. "5

. Here t he trial court resolved these evidentiary conflicts against Campos and

found Stone to be credibl e. We do not d ecide credibility and we may not reweigh the

evidence. ( Burch v. Premier Homes, LLC

, supra , 199 Cal.App.4th at p. 744.) Campos is

apparently claiming the court had to accept her testimony. But " a trial judge is not

required to accept as true the sworn t estimony of a witness, even in the absence of

evi dence directly contradicting it

. . . . " ( Lohman v. Lohman (1946) 29 Cal .2d 144, 149.)

Moreover, there must be evidence that a defendant ' s conduct " would place

a reasonable person in fear for his or her s afety

. . . . " (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6, subd.

(b) (2).) " ' [I]njunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application

to wrongs that have been completed. ' " ( Russell v. Douvan (2003) 112 C al.App.4th 399,

401.) It is " authorized

. . . only when it appears from the evidence that the harassment i s

likely to recur in the future

. . . . " ( R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 181, 189; Leydon

v. Alexander (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1, 3

- 5 .) It may not be used " ' as punishment for past

acts

. ' " ( Russell , at p. 401.) T he trial court could reasonably find that Campos did not

meet these standards. Campos has not shown otherwise.

We have reviewed Campos ' s remaining contentions and we conclude s he

has not shown error

.

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded in favor of

respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.6

. Susan Witting, Temporary Judge *

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Elizabeth Campos, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Robert Stone, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

* (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)