Court Opinion

ID: 9891495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 19:05:14.421887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:07.041929
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/18/23

                 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                           DIVISION SIX

 L.O.,                                 2d Civ. No. B321294
                                        (Cons. w/ B322754)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,    (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CV04198,
                                           22CV01697)
 v.                                  (Santa Barbara County)

 DAVID MATTHEW KILRAIN,
  Defendant and Appellant.

 _____________________________

 CITY OF SANTA BARBARA,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 DAVID MATTHEW KILRAIN,
  Defendant and Appellant.

      Failure to comply with time-honored rules of appellate
procedure may result in forfeiture of the issues on appeal.
      David Matthew Kilrain appeals from a three-year
workplace violence restraining order obtained against him by the
City of Santa Barbara (the City) on behalf of five of its employees,
and a five-year civil harassment restraining order obtained by
L.O.1 (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 527.6, 527.8; all statutory references
are to the Code of Civil Procedure). We will affirm both
restraining orders.
           FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In October 2021, L.O. petitioned for a restraining order
against Kilrain pursuant to section 527.6. The petition alleged
that Kilrain had been harassing L.O. because she is transgender
by, among other things, posting disturbing YouTube videos about
her, using a cell phone to film her, and committing an assault
against her.2
       The court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO)
pending an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing at which
L.O. and Kilrain testified, the trial court found that L.O.’s
testimony was “credible” and that Kilrain had demonstrated
“that he does, in general, have animus towards transgender
people.” The court rejected Kilrain’s assertion that L.O.’s
allegations against him were “motivated by a broader political
agenda or any local political agenda surrounding the mayor[al]
election of 2021,” in which Kilrain was a candidate, and added
“[t]here’s simply no evidence that . . . [L.O.] is involved in any
sort of conspiracy.” Accordingly, the court issued a five-year

      1 We refer to L.O. by her initials to protect her privacy.

      2 We grant Kilrain and L.O.’s unopposed motions to

augment the record on appeal in case number B321294 to include
trial court documents that were not included in Kilrain’s
designation of the record on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
854(c).)

                                 2
restraining order in favor of L.O. in accordance with section
527.6.
       The same day that the restraining order was issued on
behalf of L.O., the City petitioned for a workplace violence
restraining order against Kilrain on behalf of five City employees
pursuant to section 527.8. The petition was supported by the
employees’ declarations detailing numerous instances of
appellant’s aggressive and threatening behavior toward them.
Following its issuance of a temporary restraining order, the court
held an evidentiary hearing at which all five the affected
employees testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court
found that Kilrain’s “course of conduct, his aggressive action[s],
his threats to settle the score, and the manner in which he acted
towards City employees are a credible threat of violence.”
       The court stated: “A workplace violence restraining order
is granted in this case because [Kilrain’s] statement[s] and course
of conduct would place a reasonable person to be in fear for his or
her safety.” In its written decision, the court found that the City
employees’ testimony was “very credible” and “believable” and
“supported the City’s contention.” Accordingly, the court issued a
three-year restraining order as requested by the City.
                           DISCUSSION
       Kilrain contends that both restraining orders were
erroneously issued. We agree with respondents that Kilrain has
forfeited his contentions by failing to comply with the applicable
rules of appellate procedure.
       “[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that
a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and
the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the
record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court

                                 3
committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.
[Citations.]” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.)
“This means that an appellant must do more than assert error
and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the
law books to test his claim. The appellant must present an
adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities
and to relevant portions of the record. [Citations.]” (Yield
Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547,
557.) Accordingly, the California Rules of Court expressly
require appellate briefs to “[s]tate each point . . . and support
each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”
and to “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a
citation to the volume and page number of the record where the
matter appears.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).)
       “It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to
undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of
correctness.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 836, 852.) Nor are we “required to search the record
on [our] own seeking error.” (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002)
95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.) Consequently, “[w]hen an appellant
fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with
reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point
as waived. [Citation.]” (Benach, at p. 852.) Likewise, “‘[i]f a
party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to
the record, . . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been
waived. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122
Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu).) These rules apply both to
parties represented by counsel and self-represented parties. (See
Nwosu, at pp. 1246-1247.) “A party proceeding in propria
persona ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the

                                 4
same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and
attorneys.’ [Citation.]” (First American Title Co. v. Mirzaian
(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 956, 958, fn. 1.)
       Kilrain’s briefs do not properly cite the record and are
replete with unsupported legal and factual assertions. Because
Kilrain failed to appropriately cite the record, he forfeited any
argument that the challenged orders were erroneously issued.
(See Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)
       Kilrain also forfeited his specific argument that the
restraining orders are not supported by substantial evidence by
failing to set forth the evidence offered to support those orders.
(See City of Los Angeles v. Herman (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 97, 102
[workplace violence restraining orders reviewed for substantial
evidence]; see also City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190
Cal.App.4th 526, 538 [applying substantial evidence standard of
review to civil restraining order].) “[A]n attack on the evidence
without a fair statement of the evidence is entitled to no
consideration when it is apparent that a substantial amount of
evidence was received on behalf of the respondent.” (Nwosu,
supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.) Thus, “[a]n appellant . . . who
cites and discusses only evidence in [their] favor fails to
demonstrate any error and waives the contention that the
evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. [Citations.]”
(Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408; see also Doe
v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177
Cal.App.4th 209, 218 [appellant forfeited issue on appeal by
failing to “set forth, discuss, and analyze all [of] the evidence on
that point, both favorable and unfavorable” in opening brief].)
       Kilrain’s briefs do not set forth all the evidence upon which
both restraining orders are based. For example, he does not

                                 5
discuss or offer record citations to all of the relevant testimony
offered by L.O. or the City employees for whom the workplace
violence restraining order was issued. By failing to accurately
discuss the record, Kilrain did not provide a fair statement of the
evidence. Kilrain also fails to support his arguments with the
appropriate legal authority and reasoned arguments. He has
thus forfeited his claims that the orders were erroneously issued.
(Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246; Badie v. Bank of
America (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785; Sabbah v. Sabbah
(2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 818, 822, fn. 6.)
                           DISPOSITION
      The restraining orders are affirmed. Respondents shall
recover their costs on appeal.
      CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

                                     CODY, J.

We concur:

      GILBERT, P. J.

      YEGAN, J.

                                 6
           Stephen Foley, Thomas P. Anderle, Judges
            Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
                ______________________________

      David Matthew Kilrain, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
      Ferreira Law Group, Gabrielle Ferreira, for Plaintiff and
Respondent L.O.
      Sarah Knecht, City Attorney/City Prosecutor, Denny Wei,
Assistant City Prosecutor, for Plaintiff and Respondent City of
Santa Barbara.

                               7