Court Opinion

ID: 9554187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 23:03:27.223978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:29.086419
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/7/23 Anne N. v. David O. CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 ANNE N.,                                                              B321152

           Respondent,                                                 (Los Angeles County
                                                                       Super. Ct. No. 21PDRO01239)
           v.
                                                                       ORDER MODIFYING
 DAVID O.,                                                             OPINION AND GRANTING
                                                                       REQUEST FOR
           Appellant.                                                  CONFIDENTIALITY OF
                                                                       NAMES

                                                                        [NO CHANGE IN
                                                                       JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:
       It is ordered that the opinion in the above-entitled matter
filed on July 21, 2023, be modified as follows:
       In all instances where appellant is identified by his proper
name, replace with “David O.”
       In all instances where respondent is identified by her
proper name, replace with “Anne N.”
       On page 1, in the last sentence of the first paragraph which
now begins, “In this appeal, we reject appellant David O.’s
argument that substantial evidence does not support the order
protecting his wife, Anne N.[,]” add as footnote 2 at the end of the
sentence the following footnote, which will require renumbering
of all subsequent footnotes:

            2 At respondent’s request and in the interests of
      privacy, we do not use the parties’ full names and refer to
      the third party witness by her initials.

      There is no change in judgment.

____________________________________________________________
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.         BENDIX, J.          WEINGART, J.

                                    2
Filed 7/21/23 Nyarangi v. Ofumbi CA2/1 (unmodified opinion)
   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 ONE

 ANNE NYARANGI,                                                        B321152

           Respondent,                                                 (Los Angeles County
                                                                       Super. Ct. No. 21PDRO01239)
           v.

 DAVID WESLEY OFUMBI,

           Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Timothy Martella, Judge. Affirmed.
     Okabe and Haushalter, Mark J. Haushalter; Kravis,
Graham & Zucker and Bruce Zucker for Appellant.
     Cage & Miles and John T. Sylvester for Respondent.
                ____________________________
      The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code,
§ 6200 et seq.)1 authorizes a court to issue a protective order to
prevent recurrence of domestic violence. (Conness v. Satram
(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 197, 200.) The DVPA broadly defines
abuse to include not only acts causing bodily injury, but also acts
placing a person in apprehension of injury, harassment, and
disturbing a domestic partner’s peace. (§§ 6203, subd. (a) & 6320,
subd. (a).) In this appeal, we reject appellant David Wesley
Ofumbi’s argument that substantial evidence does not support
the order protecting his wife, Anne Nyarangi.

                         BACKGROUND
       Nyarangi and Ofumbi married in August 2004. They have
two children. On November 10, 2021, Nyarangi filed a request
for a domestic violence restraining order and a supporting
declaration.2 The trial court granted a temporary restraining
order and set a hearing, after which the court issued a three-
month restraining order, which Nyarangi later renewed for a
five-year period.

1.    Hearing
      At a hearing on April 18, 2022, Jennica Melendez testified
in favor of Nyarangi, whom she knew from church. In
December 2020, Melendez observed Ofumbi at a virtual church
service. Nyarangi was playing guitar as part of that service,

      1   Undesignated statutory citations are to the Family Code.
      2 In her respondent’s brief, Nyarangi relies on statements
in her declaration. Ofumbi argues we cannot consider these
statements. For purposes of this appeal, we rely on only the
evidence admitted at the hearing itself.

                                    2
when Ofumbi “grabbed the guitar out of her hand.” According to
Melendez, the incident “rattled” Nyarangi. (For ease of reference,
we refer to these events as the “guitar incident.” )
       Nyarangi testified with respect to the guitar incident that
Ofumbi “just grabbed the guitar from my hands . . . and threw it
across their room.” When Ofumbi took the guitar out of
Nyarangi’s hands, he said, “ ‘[Y]ou can’t do this’ ” and accused of
her of being “good for nothing” and “ ‘making noise.’ ”
       Nyarangi testified about other incidents with Ofumbi. On
March 3, 2021, Ofumbi grabbed Nyarangi, who was seated on a
couch and talking on the phone to family members. According to
Nyarangi, Ofumbi “pulled [her] and threw [her] down” because he
did not want Nyarangi to talk to her family. Subsequently, when
Nyarangi received a message that her mother had died, Ofumbi
told her not to communicate with her family. Nyarangi testified
that on November 3, 2021, Ofumbi grabbed her upper arm,
twisting it and squeezing it “hard . . . and then also shoved [her]
and pushed [her] through the hallways. Ofumbi berated
Nyarangi as “dirty, . . . good for nothing, . . . . stupid, . . . [and]
foolish . . . .” One of the children said, “ ‘[D]ad stop.’ ” The other
cried. Nyarangi saw one child push Ofumbi to prevent him from
hurting her.
       Nyarangi also testified that, at the time of the hearing, she
was in pain from an incident several years earlier when Ofumbi
sat on her. Also, according to Nyarangi, Ofumbi had a “habit” of
“alienating [her] from the children,” for example by telling her to
leave the children’s room and then placing “his hands . . . on
[her].”
       Nyarangi worried about calling the police because (1) she
was afraid Ofumbi may harm the children, (2) Ofumbi told her

                                      3
she could “lose [her] immigration status,” and (3) the police could
harm Ofumbi. Nyarangi moved out of the family home on
November 9, 2021 to a “safe place,” which she did not identify.
She left the family home because it was unsafe, but not until she
had found a safe place in which to live. On November 9, 2021,
Nyarangi reported Ofumbi’s abuse to the police.
      Ofumbi testified he never physically harmed Nyarangi nor
put his hands on her “offensively to harm.” Ofumbi stated he
“did not yank the guitar” from her during the church service, but
instead, was upset because she had not fed the children and had
“refused to listen to [him], to cooperate so that we see how to give
our children food.” Ofumbi further explained, “[W]orship is not
acceptable to God when the children are hungry.” He stated his
concern “was not the guitar. [His] concern was her worship is not
acceptable before God, and that’s the word of God.”
      Ofumbi remembered a different version of the November 3,
2021 incident. He claimed that on that date, he had asked the
children to clean their room but they initially did not heed his
request. When he finally persuaded the children to clean their
room, Nyarangi, “for the first time, came, stormed the room while
we were cleaning . . . .” Ofumbi asked Nyarangi to leave the room
because she was interrupting the cleaning process. Nyarangi
then returned to the room and for four minutes berated one of the
children for using money “to buy candy” stating, “That girl eats
candy.” He further recounted that he “pleaded with her to stop
yelling those [sic] rantful abuse to the daughter.” Ofumbi stated,
“[T]he ranting is the very thing that the child has been
complaining about, that this [ranting] means we hate her. Sadly,
when I told her [Nyarangi] to stop and she continued, it was clear
to me that this was premeditated provocation to claim abuse.”

                                    4
Holding Nyarangi close “to [his] chest, Ofumbi asked her to stop
and when she refused, she started “ranting at her high top pitch.
And when I held her hand, that [is] now when she screamed
alleging that I abused her. And I told her, ‘Anne, you are stage-
managing your abuse.’ ” Ofumbi testified that he was just trying
to protect his daughter from “mental anguish.” Ofumbi denied
touching or squeezing Nyarangi’s upper arms.
       Ofumbi testified he never yelled at Nyarangi. According to
Ofumbi, Nyarangi did not have “access to funds that [Ofumbi]
brought into the marriage.” Also, according to Ofumbi, between
the November 3, 2021 incident and November 9 when Nyarangi
reported the abuse, Nyarangi did not “express any fear or anger”
towards him.
       During Ofumbi’s testimony, the trial court asked him to
“calm down.” Multiple times, the court stopped Ofumbi and
requested his counsel to ask the next question. The court also
had to instruct Ofumbi to “[j]ust answer the question” and to
“[w]ait” for the question. When the court told Ofumbi to wait for
the question, Ofumbi responded “This is very important—[.]”
Shortly afterwards, the court again instructed Ofumbi to “[w]ait
for a question.” During cross-examination, the court asked
Ofumbi to stop speaking at the same time as Nyarangi’s counsel.

2.    Trial court findings
        After the hearing, the court stated, “The court does find
sufficient evidence to issue a restraining order. I think this
gentleman appears to have been very oppressive to his wife for
some period of time. [¶] The guitar incident was the most telling
of all in his explanation about it all. And I believe her that he did
snatch the guitar out of her hands, or he somehow stopped her
from playing in front of the congregation . . . because of some rule

                                     5
that he quotes from God.” The court continued, Ofumbi “can
become a very amped up individual. He did while he was on the
witness stand. He was hard to control. And I think that’s
reflected and bolsters the testimony of” Nyarangi.” The court set
the restraining order to expire on July 30, 2022.
       Ofumbi timely appealed from the domestic violence
restraining order. The trial court later issued an order to renew
the domestic violence order through April 17, 2028.3

                          DISCUSSION
      Ofumbi argues there was insufficient evidence to support
the trial court’s finding that he abused Nyarangi.4 He argues the
guitar incident does not constitute abuse under section 6203.
Finally, he contends his challenge to the sufficiency of evidence is
not moot even though the initial restraining order expired in July
of 2022. We need not decide this issue because we choose to

      3  We grant respondent’s unopposed request to take judicial
notice of the order renewing the domestic violence restraining
order. We also grant both parties’ (separate) requests for judicial
notice of the trial court’s case information summary.
      4  In his opening brief, Ofumbi does not challenge the
restraining order as it applies to the children. In his reply brief,
he merely states that the record does not support “the immediacy
of possible harm to any of the protected persons.” Ofumbi has
forfeited challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting
inclusion of the children as protected persons. (Golden Door
Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 786
[“issues not addressed as error in a party’s opening brief with
legal analysis and citation to authority are forfeited”].) The
record shows that the trial court ordered a report to assess
Ofumbi’s visitation and custody, but that report is not included in
the record.

                                    6
consider the merits of Ofumbi’s claim. (See In re D.P. (2023)
14 Cal.5th 266, 282 [court has inherent discretion to reach merits
of dispute even if dispute is technically moot].)

      Legal Background
       For purposes of a restraining order, section 6203 defines
abuse as “intentionally or recklessly caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to
cause bodily injury,” “[s]exual assault,” or placing a person in
“reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury . . . .”
(§ 6203, subd. (a).) Section 6203 also defines abuse as “engag[ing]
in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to
Section 6320.” (§ 6203, subd. (a)(4).) Section 6320 authorizes the
court to issue an ex parte order “enjoining a party from
molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually
assaulting, battering, credibly impersonating . . . harassing,
telephoning, . . . destroying personal property, contacting, either
directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a
specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party,
and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause,
of other named family or household members. (§ 6320, subd. (a).)
“ ‘[T]he plain meaning of the phrase “disturbing the peace of the
other party” in section 6320 may be properly understood as
conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other
party.’ [Citations.]” (N.T. v. H.T. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 595, 602;
see also In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483,
1497.)
       We review the grant of a restraining order for abuse of
discretion, and the factual findings supporting the restraining
order for substantial evidence. In doing so, we resolve all
conflicts in evidence and take all inferences in favor of upholding
the trial court’s order. (Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th

                                   7
1219, 1226, disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of
O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.)
       Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s
findings that Ofumbi abused Nyarangi. The record shows
Ofumbi intentionally or recklessly attempted to cause bodily
injury on at least two occasions. In March 2021, Ofumbi pulled
Nyarangi and threw her to the ground. In November 2021,
Ofumbi twisted Nyarangi’s arm, squeezing it “hard,” and then
shoved and pushed her through the hallway. Additionally, as
witnessed by Melendez, Ofumbi disturbed Nyarangi’s peace when
he grabbed the guitar she was playing as part of a church
worship service. Although Ofumbi correctly points out that there
was no evidence Nyarangi sought treatment for any purported
resulting injury, seeking treatment is not a prerequisite to
finding abuse under section 6203. (§ 6203, subd. (b) [“Abuse is
not limited to the actual infliction of physical injury or assault.”];
see also Phillips v. Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844, 852–853.)
       Ofumbi argues Nyarangi was not in fear of imminent bodily
injury and did not suffer disturbance of her peace of mind
because she did not move out of the family home or contact police
immediately after any alleged abusive act. To the contrary, that
she moved out later demonstrates she was apprehensive of
Ofumbi’s physical and emotional abuse and any delay in moving
out Nyarangi explained was due to locating a new place in which
to live. To the extent, Ofumbi is arguing her failure to move out
immediately demonstrates that Nyarangi’s testimony was not
credible, the argument fails because the trial court expressly
found her credible and that Ofumbi’s conduct towards Nyarangi
mirrored Ofumbi’s “amped up” conduct in court. We do not
reassess credibility on appeal. (See Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007)

                                     8
156 Cal.App.4th 413, 420 [reviewing court “ ‘has no authority to
substitute its decision for that of the trial court’ ”].)

                        DISPOSITION
      The domestic violence restraining order is affirmed. Costs
are awarded to Anne Nyarangi.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                          BENDIX, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             WEINGART, J.

                                   9