Court Opinion

ID: 9399856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 17:04:40.647677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.378641
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.,                                           B318004

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct.
           v.                                                 No. 21AVRO00911)

 DEBBIE DAVIDSOHN,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     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.
                     ——————————
       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.

                                 2
       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

                                 3
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

                                 4
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

                                  5
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.

                                6