Court Opinion

ID: 9388038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 18:02:44.630109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:17.106968
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/19/23 Smith v. Smith 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

 DEREK L. SMITH,                                              2d Civil No. B321667
                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 56-2021-
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                             00558286-CU-HR-VTA)
                                                               (Ventura County)
 v.

 DANYA SMITH,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Danya Smith (Danya) appeals from an order granting
Derek L. Smith’s (Derek)1 civil harassment restraining order
against her. Danya contends the restraining order must be
vacated because there was insufficient evidence that she willingly
and knowingly harassed Derek. We affirm.

       We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid
         1

confusion. No disrespect is intended.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Danya and her now-deceased husband Steve2 lived next to
Derek, his wife Kari, and his two young daughters. The parties
had a dispute after Derek installed a privacy screen between
their properties. After the dispute, Danya and Steve allegedly
played loud music to harass Derek.
       In September 2021, Derek requested two separate civil
harassment restraining orders, one against Danya and one
against Steve, alleging they “intentionally blast[ed] unbearably
loud music for hours at a time, day and night, on five very large
speakers aimed at [Derek]’s property.”
       The trial court consolidated the two restraining order
actions into one evidentiary hearing. Derek presented more than
300 video recordings documenting the music coming from the
speakers at all times of day and night and photographs of the
speakers pointed directly at Derek’s home. In one of the videos
music blared from the speakers while no one was in Danya and
Steve’s backyard listening to the music. In other videos music
played from the speakers while no cars were in Danya and
Steve’s driveway, indicating they were not home. One video
showed Danya and Steve leaving the house while the music was
still playing in their backyard. Other videos showed the music
played loudly over several hours.
       Derek testified the loud music began after he installed the
privacy screen between his home and Danya and Steve’s home.
The music played whenever Derek and his family were at home
and played “almost every single day.” Derek testified that when
he confronted them, Steve responded that they were “going to do

      2   Steve passed away in June 2022.

                                 2
what [they] want,” and Danya “yell[ed] and scream[ed] curse
words” while his daughters were standing next to him.
       Ventura County Sheriff deputies testified about multiple
noise disturbance complaints. One deputy testified that he
responded to a call around midnight on a Wednesday. The
deputy’s body camera footage showed that music was coming
from Danya and Steve’s backyard. The deputy testified it was
audible from the street and the music was “[t]oo loud for a
Wednesday night in that neighborhood.” The deputy’s body
camera footage also showed the music was louder on Derek’s side
of the privacy screen than on Danya and Steve’s side. The
footage also recorded the deputy’s interaction with Steve. When
the deputy told Steve his music was too loud, Steve responded “do
you see that eight-foot fence right there?”
       Another deputy testified that he responded “at least twice”
to noise complaints. The deputy said he heard “loud music
coming from” Danya and Steve’s home and could hear music
“blaring pretty loudly from inside” Derek’s home. A few months
later, the deputy returned to Derek’s home and heard music
coming from Danya and Steve’s home. The deputy tried to knock
on Danya and Steve’s front door, but there was no answer.
       A neighbor who lived across the street from Danya and
Steve testified he heard loud music emanating from their house
from early in the morning to around 10:00 p.m. The music played
“consistently” for months.
       Danya testified on her own behalf. She testified that she
listened to music a few nights a week. She explained the outdoor
speakers were controlled by an application on her phone, which
she controlled remotely. She denied that the outside speakers
were faced towards Derek’s home and that music played when no

                                3
one was at her home. She also said she played music at the same
frequency as she did before the screen dispute. She denied
deliberately playing music to harass Derek and his family.
       After three days of evidence, the trial court ruled in favor of
Derek. The court found the music from Danya and Steve’s home
increased in frequency after the screen dispute began. It found
“clear and convincing . . . that the response for the wall and the
dispute—the response by Danya and Steve Smith was to act in a
way that was harassing and annoying to Derek and Kari Smith.”
       The trial court granted the five-year restraining orders.
The restraining order against Danya prohibited her from
harassing, disturbing the peace, and contacting Derek and his
family. It also prohibited Danya from “knowingly operating or
causing to be operated any source of sound, or . . . ‘unreasonable
noise’ on their property.”
                            DISCUSSION
       Danya argues there was insufficient evidence to support
the trial court’s finding of harassment. She also argues the
evidence only implicated her husband, and not her. We disagree.
       “Harassment” is defined as “[1] unlawful violence, [2] a
credible threat of violence, or [3] a knowing and willful course of
conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms,
annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate
purpose.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) Before issuing a
restraining order against a person, the trial court is required to
find the harassment by clear and convincing evidence. (Schraer
v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719,
730.) We review the factual findings necessary to support the
protective order for substantial evidence. (Harris v. Stampolis
(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 497.) “We resolve all conflicts in the

                                  4
evidence in favor of respondent, the prevailing party, and indulge
all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of upholding the
trial court’s findings.” (Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th
1131, 1137-1138.)
       Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that
Danya knowingly and willfully engaged in conduct directed to
alarm, annoy, or harass Derek. The evidence included
photographs and over 300 videos documenting loud music playing
from her outdoor speakers directed towards Derek’s home. The
videos confirmed that music played at all hours of the day and
night and for several hours at a time. The music played even
when Danya and Steve were not home or when no one was
outside listening to the music. A neighbor corroborated that he
could hear loud music from early in the morning to 10:00 p.m.
and that it played consistently for months. The evidence also
established the music was played through an application on
Danya’s phone and that she had the ability to control the music
remotely.
       Several deputies testified they were called for noise
complaints regarding the loud music, which was audible from the
street. The body camera footage captured the music playing
loudly over the speakers late on a weeknight and showed that it
was louder on Derek’s side of the property. The footage also
captured Steve’s response to the noise complaint with a comment
about the screen, indicative of his intent to harass Derek over the
screen dispute. Derek testified that Danya was also angry about
the screen and had “yell[ed] and scream[ed] curse words” at him
and his family.
       Danya argues the evidence does not show she engaged in
harassing behavior and that there was only evidence of Steve’s

                                5
actions. Her argument lacks merit. Danya presented evidence at
trial, including her own testimony denying that she engaged in
harassing behavior. But the trial court rejected it. Because we
must accept the court’s credibility findings and cannot reweigh
the evidence, we accept the trial court’s resolution of conflicting
evidence. (Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 774, 786;
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1008.)3
                           DISPOSITION
        The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs
on appeal.
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             YEGAN, J.

      3 In her reply brief, Danya argues for the first time there
was no evidence of (1) conduct that would cause a reasonable
person “substantial emotional distress” and (2) a likelihood of
future misconduct. Danya forfeited these arguments by failing to
raise them in her opening brief. (High Sierra Rural Alliance v.
County of Plumas (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 102, 111.)

                                 6
                R. Paul Kawai, Commissioner

              Superior Court County of Ventura

               ______________________________

      Arentfox Schiff, Malcolm McNeil, Gary Brophy and
Susanne Boniadi for Defendant and Appellant.
      Bamieh & DeSmeth, Ron Bamieh and Natalie N. Mutz for
Plaintiff and Respondent.