Court Opinion

ID: 9555345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 18:06:32.323053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:28.942534
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/11/23 Narayan v. Chovatia CA1/4
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FOUR

 JAGDISH NARAYAN,
      Plaintiff and
 Respondent,                                                  A166381

 v.                                                           (Alameda County
 RUPA R. CHOVATIA,                                            Super. Ct.
                                                              No. 22CV013851)
      Defendant and
 Appellant.

          Rupa Chovatia appeals from the trial court’s issuance of a
civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure
section 527.6 in favor of Jagdish Narayan and his wife and son.
She argues substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s
order. Chovatia fails to demonstrate any error, so we will affirm.
          Chovatia describes a great deal of factual background for
the case, much of it involving ill-treatment she allegedly suffered
at the hands of Narayan and his family. Chovatia provides no
citations to the record for any of her factual assertions, which is
improper. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) [briefs must
“[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

                                                      1
appears”].) This rule exists in part because we may not consider
any factual matters that are not in the record. (CIT
Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. Super DVD, Inc. (2004)
115 Cal.App.4th 537, 539, fn. 1 [“it is well established that a
reviewing court may not give any consideration to alleged facts
that are outside of the record on appeal”].)
      As far as we can discern from our own review of the record,
Narayan alleged in his request for a restraining order that
Chovatia was a former tenant who trespassed by staying on
illegally in a unit on Narayan’s property. He further alleged that
Chovatia had been harassing his family, had verbally threatened
them and said they would soon die, and burned the top part of
her unit. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order
requiring Chovatia to stay 100 yards away from Narayan’s family
and their home, workplace, and vehicle, but the order also said
that the order did not prevent Chovatia from going to or from her
home.
      Chovatia’s written response, filed the same day as the
hearing on the request for a permanent restraining order, alleged
that Narayan and his family had been harassing, threatening,
and assaulting her in retaliation for her complaints about illegal
rent and unpermitted construction. Chovatia denied setting fire
to the unit and alleged Narayan and his family members
deliberately set the fire to harm Chovatia and her cats. She also
alleged that she had moved out of the unit but had to return to
care for her cats.

                                 2
      After a hearing at which Narayan, his wife, and Chovatia
testified, the trial court issued a restraining order that expires on
August 11, 2023. Like the temporary restraining order, the
permanent order requires Chovatia to stay away from the
Narayan family and their home and vehicle but does not prevent
Chovatia from going to her home or place of employment. The
order also gave Chovatia until December 11, 2022, to return to
the Narayans’ property to retrieve her cats.
      We have jurisdiction over this appeal. (Williams v.
Superior Court (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 101, 108, fn. 4.) We review
for substantial evidence the trial court’s factual findings
supporting its decision to grant a restraining order, and we
consider de novo whether the facts are sufficient to constitute
civil harassment under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.
(Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, 497.)
      Chovatia argues the trial court’s restraining order lacks
evidentiary support because (1) Narayan submitted no evidence
that she burned the top of her unit and (2) she had Narayan’s
consent to stay in her unit and was therefore not trespassing.
      Chovatia has not provided an adequate record for us to
consider her arguments. “[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 committed an error that justifies
reversal of the judgment. . . . ‘ “A necessary corollary to this rule
is that if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the

                                  3
appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be
affirmed.” ’ [Citation.] ‘Consequently, [the appellant] has the
burden of providing an adequate record. [Citation.] Failure to
provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be
resolved against [the appellant].’ ” (Jameson v. Desta (2018)
5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.)
      This rule is fatal to Chovatia’s appeal because she has not
provided a reporter’s transcript or acceptable substitute that
would permit us to consider her arguments.1 (Cal. Rules of
Court, rules 8.134, 8.137 [describing alternatives to reporter’s
transcript].) Without a record of the testimony at the hearing, we
have no basis on which to evaluate Chovatia’s claims that she
established she had Narayan’s consent to stay in the unit or that
Narayan submitted insufficient evidence to warrant a restraining
order. The lack of a record of the oral proceedings in the trial
court therefore prevents Chovatia from overcoming the
presumption of correctness favoring the trial court’s order. “ ‘In
the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions
in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate
court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court

      1 Jameson v. Desta, supra, 5 Cal.5th at page 623, requires

“that an official court reporter, or other valid means to create an
official verbatim record for purposes of appeal, must generally be
made available to in forma pauperis litigants upon request.” On
the same day as the hearing, Chovatia filed and the trial court
granted a request to waive court fees. The fee waiver states that
Chovatia was entitled to a waiver of a reporter’s fees for
attendance at the hearing if Chovatia requested a reporter.
Chovatia nowhere asserts that she requested a court reporter and
was denied one.

                                  4
below which would have authorized the order complained of, it
will be presumed that such matters were presented.” ’ ”
(Jameson v. Desta, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 609.) Because we have
no record of the testimony at the hearing, we must assume
Narayan and his wife offered testimony that would support the
issuance of the restraining order, even over Chovatia’s contrary
testimony.
      Even if Chovatia had provided a suitable record, however,
it would not change the outcome here. Chovatia states in her
brief that Narayan falsely accused her at the hearing of burning
the top part of her unit. This contradicts her assertion that
Narayan offered no evidence that she burned the unit; Narayan’s
sworn testimony would have been evidence. Chovatia states that
Narayan also accused her at the hearing of harassment, stalking,
and threats. This conduct on its face meets the statutory grounds
for issuance of a restraining order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6,
subds. (a)(1) [person who has suffered harassment may seek a
restraining order], (b)(3) [harassment includes a credible threat
of violence or a course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys,
or harasses a specific person and serves no legitimate purpose].)
Chovatia asserts that she denied all of these allegations at the
hearing. But Chovatia offers no argument relevant to these
allegations or any reason why, if the trial court believed them,
they would not be sufficient on their own to support the order.
      At root, Chovatia appears to be asking this court to
overturn the trial court order based on a re-evaluation of her
testimony and that of Narayan and his wife. But an appellate

                                 5
court “ ‘has no power to judge the effect or value of, or to weigh
the evidence; to consider the credibility of witnesses; or to resolve
conflicts in, or make inferences or deductions from the evidence.
We review a cold record and, unlike a trial court, have no
opportunity to observe the appearance and demeanor of the
witnesses. [Citation.] “Issues of fact and credibility are
questions for the trial court.” [Citations.] It is not an appellate
court’s function, in short, to redetermine the facts.’ ” (In re S.A.
(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1140.) Even if Chovatia had
provided a record of the testimony at the hearing to support her
description of what transpired, we would still have to affirm the
trial court’s order, as this court would have no basis to overturn
the trial court’s crediting of Narayan’s evidence.
                                DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                              BROWN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOLDMAN, J.
FINEMAN, J.

Narayan v. Chovatia (A166381)

       
        Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                     6