Court Opinion

ID: 9914325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-30 00:01:55.265841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:19.861691
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/29/23 Sophy v. Voss 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

CHARLES SOPHY,                                            B323691

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                          Super. Ct. No.
        v.                                                21SMRO00077)

BRUCE VOSS,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mark A. Juhas, Judge. Affirmed.
      Law Offices of James R. Eliaser and James R. Eliaser for
Defendant and Appellant.
      El Dabe Ritter Trial Lawyers and Joshua E. Ritter for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
       Bruce Voss and Charles Sophy were in a committed
relationship for many years. The relationship deteriorated, and
over the course of a few months in early 2021, Voss placed a
series of GPS trackers and audio recorders in Sophy’s car, used
the trackers to locate Sophy without his knowledge or consent,
and followed Sophy to at least two locations. Sophy ultimately
filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order, which
the trial court granted first on a temporary basis and later, after
a noticed hearing, for a term of five years. Voss appeals the
issuance of the five-year restraining order and we consider, in the
main, whether the trial court misinterpreted relevant legal
standards and lacked sufficient evidence to support the ruling it
made.

                        I. BACKGROUND
      A.     Sophy’s Request for a Restraining Order
      Sophy and Voss entered into a domestic partnership in the
early 2000s. They have one adult child, Benjamin Sophy-Voss
(Son), and two dogs.1 They jointly own two homes, one in Beverly
Hills and one in Rancho Mirage.
      In late April 2021, Sophy filed a Judicial Council form DV-
100 request for domestic violence restraining order seeking
protection for him and Son and compelling Voss to move out of
their home in Beverly Hills. In support of his request, Sophy
attached a declaration attesting to certain events we now
summarize.

1
      Son was twenty years old at the time of the hearing on the
restraining order.

                                 2
       Earlier in March 2021, Voss found Sophy at an apartment
building in Anaheim and forced his way into the apartment after
taking photos of Sophy’s car in the parking lot. Voss was forced
out of the apartment before Sophy encountered him. Sophy
confronted Voss about the incident afterward, and Voss started
yelling and screaming at Sophy. The incident made Sophy
believe he was being tracked in some way.
       A few days after the Anaheim incident, Sophy’s car, which
had previously been in perfect condition, started shaking and
ultimately exploded on the side of a freeway. Voss, whose
number Sophy had previously blocked, called Sophy shortly
thereafter. Sophy was frightened both by the timing of the call
and because Voss’s number was unblocked. Voss also called Son
and told him he knew about the explosion because he had been
tracking Sophy.
       Sophy thereafter traveled to pick up a replacement vehicle
from a car dealership. Voss arrived ahead of him and left a photo
of Voss, Sophy, and Son on the driver’s seat of the replacement
vehicle. Upon seeing the photo, Sophy panicked and felt sick
with worry. An employee from the dealership eventually found a
tracker underneath the driver’s seat.
       Sophy later discovered another tracker in his car. He
stated he was terrified of Voss’s behavior and the potential
continuing escalation of that behavior.
       The trial court issued a temporary restraining order
protecting Sophy, Son, and their two dogs, and ordering Voss to
move out of the Beverly Hills home. The court set an evidentiary
hearing to consider issuance of a more permanent restraining
order for the following month.

                                3
      B.    The Restraining Order Evidentiary Hearing
      The hearing on Sophy’s request for a restraining order took
place over a series of days in late July and early August 2022.
Sophy testified and called several third party witnesses,
including Son, the residents who lived at the Anaheim apartment
where Voss was alleged to have barged in, and car dealership
employees. Voss also testified to provide his own account of the
events in question and Voss called additional witnesses to opine
on Sophy’s character.2

            1.     Sophy’s presentation of evidence
      There was general testimony during the hearing, from
Sophy and Son, concerning the often contentious relationship
between Sophy and Voss. Son testified he witnessed Voss
threaten Sophy with violence more than ten times and follow
through with violence two or three times in the months leading
up to issuance of the temporary restraining order. Verbally, Voss
threatened he would ruin Sophy’s reputation, said no one could
have Sophy if he could not have Sophy, threatened to run away
with Son, and alternately threatened to kill Sophy or himself.
Son specifically recalled an incident shortly before issuance of the
temporary restraining order in which Voss and Sophy were
engaged in a verbal altercation in the kitchen and Voss got in
Sophy’s face and shoved him.

2
      The reporter’s transcript of the hearing indicates a number
of exhibits were admitted in evidence but no party has
transmitted any exhibits to this court.

                                 4
       Son also described an incident that occurred in the years
prior to the issuance of the temporary restraining order when he
heard Voss and Sophy arguing in another room. Son heard
Sophy tell Voss to “stop” and then heard what sounded like a
slap, which Son characterized as “definitely a hand on body
contact.”3 Son entered the room and Sophy appeared shaken.
Sophy shoved Voss away from him.
       Sophy testified Voss had been violent toward him in the
months leading up to issuance of the temporary restraining
order. The prior Christmas, for example, Voss became angry
about shirts he received as Christmas gifts and threw the shirts
at Sophy.
       Sophy testified he had been afraid of Voss every day and
believed Voss had no ability to control himself. Son asked to be
included in the restraining order because he too was sometimes
afraid of Voss; he was specifically afraid Voss would retaliate
against him in a violent manner.
       There was also more specific testimony at the hearing
concerning the time when Voss confronted Sophy at the
apartment in Anaheim in early March 2021. Sophy went to the
apartment one morning to visit with one of the three tenants.
When another of the tenants returned from a morning session at
the gym, he observed Voss taking pictures of Sophy’s vehicle,
which was parked in the apartment’s parking garage. Voss told
the man he was interested in buying a vehicle like Sophy’s. The
man said he knew someone who could tell Voss more about the

3
     Sophy confirmed Voss slapped him.

                                5
car and went upstairs to his apartment, believing that Voss was
waiting in the garage.
       When the man arrived at his apartment door and began to
open it, he realized Voss was behind him. Voss pushed past the
man and walked into the apartment. A female tenant, who had
just gotten out of the shower and was covered only by a towel,
screamed. The tenants then pushed Voss out of the apartment
(Sophy did not emerge from one of the apartment’s rooms until
Voss was gone). The tenants eventually reported the incident to
the police.
       Later in March 2021, Sophy was driving on the freeway
when his car began to shake. He pulled over to the side of the
road and exited the car. Shortly thereafter, the vehicle was
engulfed in flames. Voss spoke with Son later that day and told
Son he saw the remains of the vehicle after the fire because he
had placed a tracker on Sophy’s car.4
       There was also other testimony at the hearing about
vehicle tracking devices Voss placed on Sophy’s mode of
transportation. Jacob Dutton was working at Sophy’s preferred
car dealership in late March 2021, and Voss arrived at around
10:30 or 11:00 a.m. Voss knew Sophy was picking up a new car
and said he wanted to surprise him by having Dutton leave a
framed photograph of Voss, Sophy, and Son on the car seat. Voss
also asked to see Sophy’s new car. Dutton was called away just
after the car was moved to the delivery bay, and Voss was left

4
      At some later point, Sophy went to the salvage yard to try
to recover some of his belongings from the remains of his car. He
discovered a tracker under the driver’s seat.

                                6
alone with the unlocked car for approximately ten minutes. Voss
hid when he believed Sophy was close to arriving.
      Sophy arrived at the dealership. When he found the
photograph inside the car, he screamed and asked if Voss was
there. Upon receiving confirmation that he was, Sophy left
immediately. At Sophy’s request, Dutton searched the car and
eventually found a tracking device under the driver’s seat. Sophy
was afraid, and took this as a sign that Voss was out of control.
      Sophy presented evidence of other tracking and recording
devices as well. In late April 2021, Sophy discovered an audio
recorder in his car. Juan Vega, a mechanic at Sophy’s car
dealership, discovered another tracking device in Sophy’s car on
May 5, 2021.
      In addition, Sophy presented evidence that Voss continued
to contact him even after issuance of the temporary restraining
order (and in apparent violation of it). Sophy’s call log indicated
Voss called Sophy twice after the service of the temporary
restraining order. Sophy also received text messages from
numbers he did not recognize, but he believed Voss sent the
messages based on their content.

             2.    Voss’s presentation of evidence
      Voss testified Sophy’s behavior changed significantly, and
for the worse, in early 2021. He was increasingly agitated,
anxious, irritable, and explosive, and he began sneaking around
their house and avoiding Voss. Voss learned Sophy had cheated
on him a few years prior, and confronted Sophy. Sophy
eventually admitted to the infidelity. According to Voss, Sophy
was also giving “mixed messages” and exhibiting paranoia.
Based on Sophy’s behavior, Voss worried drugs were involved. As

                                 7
a result, Voss purchased a GPS tracking device and placed it on
Sophy’s car on March 1.5
      Voss tracked Sophy using the GPS tracker in the days
leading up to the Anaheim apartment incident. On the day of the
incident, Voss drove to Anaheim to follow the tracker because he
claimed to have thought there was an inconsistency between
where Sophy told Voss he would be and where the tracker
indicated he was located. He followed a car into a gated parking
garage near an apartment complex, located Sophy’s car, and took
photographs of it. According to Voss, when the male apartment
tenant approached him in the garage, Voss mentioned Sophy by
name and the tenant asked Voss if he wanted to go up to say
hello. Voss followed him and entered the apartment. He didn’t
see anyone in the apartment, so he opened a door. A woman
screamed. Voss moved to leave, and another of the tenants tried
to “rough [Voss] up.” Voss then left.
      Voss also admitted he tracked Sophy’s car the night it
caught on fire. Sophy appeared to be in Anaheim, and Voss was
driving to find him. Partway through the drive, the tracker
indicated Sophy was driving back toward Beverly Hills so Voss
turned around and followed the tracker. He ultimately found
Sophy’s burned car being moved by a flatbed truck. The driver of
the truck told Voss that Sophy made it out alive. Voss called Son,
who told him Sophy was okay. Voss told Son he was standing by

5
     Voss testified he purchased a total of five tracking devices
and two recording devices. Voss also hired a private investigator,
who provided him with bank statements from Sophy and his
business.

                                8
Sophy’s car. When Son asked how he found it, Voss said he had
put a tracker on the vehicle.
       Voss testified he discovered the time and place Sophy was
set to pick up his new car. He believed Sophy was in rehab, and
wanted to express his support for Sophy.
       Voss arrived at the dealership at which Sophy was set to
obtain his car early, so he took a drive and happened to drive
past Sophy in his rental vehicle with one of the Anaheim
apartment’s tenants. Voss followed them and saw them go into a
restaurant. Voss lost track of them and went to wait for Sophy at
the dealership. Before Sophy arrived, Voss put a new tracker
beneath the driver’s seat. Dutton put the framed photograph of
Voss, Sophy, and Son on the driver’s seat per Voss’s request.
       Voss denied sending text messages to Sophy after being
served with the temporary restraining order, and he also denied
directing anyone else to do so. He argued the screenshots
purportedly demonstrating Sophy had missed calls from his
number were fake or manipulated. Voss did admit to sending
Sophy one email after the service of the restraining order, but
Voss asserted he did not know emails were prohibited by the
restraining order. Voss also admitted to calling Son right after
service of the temporary restraining order. Voss said he told Son
he loved him but would not forgive him for calling to make sure
he was present when the process servers arrived to serve the
order.
       Voss denied slapping Sophy during the incident Son
described, stating the sound Son heard was the sound of a hand
slapping the wooden floor. He also denied throwing Christmas
gifts at Sophy.

                                9
       In addition to testifying himself, Voss called witnesses to
provide character testimony of sorts regarding Sophy. One
witness who knew Sophy through a musical artist with whom
they were both acquainted testified Sophy prescribed him
medication without his knowledge. One of Son’s former nannies
testified she left her employment because Sophy made her
uncomfortable and their employment relationship was abusive.
She also testified Sophy used to medicate Son and write him
prescriptions, but Sophy refused to tell Son’s school that Son was
on medication.6

      C.    The Trial Court Grants the Restraining Order
      The trial court stated the case turned on the trackers, the
photograph incident at the dealership, and the incident at the
apartment in Anaheim.7 The court granted the restraining order
and exercised its discretion to grant Son’s request to be an
additional protected person under the order. In the court’s view,
when one person in a relationship tracked the other person and

6
      Voss desired to present additional character witnesses to
speak to Sophy’s general character, but the trial court deemed it
irrelevant and declined to allow Voss to do so.
      Voss also asked the court for an order allowing his expert to
examine Sophy’s electronics in an effort to establish he had not
contacted Sophy after the service of the restraining order. The
court denied Voss’s request because it determined the post-
service contact was irrelevant.
7
      The court expressly did not rely on Sophy’s allegations
regarding post-service contact or the allegation that Voss caused
Sophy’s car to catch on fire.

                                10
put listening devices in their car, regardless of whether that
behavior amounted to criminal stalking, it constituted statutorily
prohibited harassment and disturbing the peace of the other
person. Although Voss testified he placed the trackers out of
concern for Sophy’s safety, the court believed the pertinent
question was the victim’s subjective interpretation, not the
perpetrator’s claimed intent.
       Given the repetitive nature of the harassment, the court
issued the restraining order for five years, until July 31, 2027.
The order required Voss to move out of the home and gave Sophy
the exclusive ability to use, control, and possess the property.
The court declined to order the parties to switch residences
because Voss had demonstrated he had no problem using
recording devices and tracking devices.

                          II. DISCUSSION
       Voss has not demonstrated the trial court abused its
discretion in issuing the restraining order. Substantial evidence
supports the trial court’s determination that Voss disturbed
Sophy’s peace, and disturbing the peace is both a sufficient
ground upon which to issue a domestic violence restraining order
and one that does not require any particular mental state on the
part of the restrained person. Substantial evidence also supports
the trial court’s order requiring Voss to remain out of the parties’
jointly owned Beverly Hills home because there is sufficient
evidence that Voss assaulted or threatened to assault Sophy.
Voss’s remaining contentions of error are forfeited for failure to
support them with reasoned argument.

                                 11
       A.     Background Law
       The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200,
et seq.) (DVPA) “permits the trial court to issue a protective order
‘to restrain any person for the purpose’ of preventing a recurrence
of domestic violence and ensuring a period of separation of the
persons involved; the petitioner must present ‘reasonable proof of
a past act or acts of abuse.’” (Rodriguez v. Menjivar (2015) 243
Cal.App.4th 816, 820.) Abuse is “not limited to the actual
infliction of physical injury or assault.” (Fam. Code § 6203, subd.
(b).)
       Under the DVPA, the trial court is authorized to issue a
protective order “to restrain any person” for the purpose of
preventing domestic violence, “if an affidavit or testimony and
any additional information provided to the court . . . shows, to the
satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of
abuse.” (Fam. Code, §§ 6300, subd. (a); 6220; see In re Marriage
of F.M. & M.M. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 106, 116.) Family Code
section 6300, subdivision (a) further provides: “The court may
issue an order under this part based solely on the affidavit or
testimony of the person requesting the restraining order.”
       Domestic violence under the DVPA includes “abuse
perpetrated” against “[a] spouse or former spouse” or “[a] child of
a party.” (Fam. Code, § 6211, subds. (a) & (e).) The term “‘abuse’
means . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (4) To engage in any behavior that has been
or could be enjoined pursuant to [Family Code] Section 6320.”
(Fam. Code, § 6203, subd. (a)(4).) As described in more detail,
infra, “disturbing the peace of the other party” is among the
conduct that can be enjoined by that section.
(Fam. Code, § 6320, subds. (a), (c).)

                                 12
       “The trial court’s issuance of a restraining order under the
[DVPA] is a discretionary matter.” (McCord v. Smith (2020) 51
Cal.App.5th 358, 364-365.) Where the trial court’s exercise of
discretion rests on a disputed interpretation of governing legal
principles, we review the interpretation de novo. (Eneaji v.
Ubboe (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1463.) Where the exercise of
discretion rests on the resolution of disputed facts, we review the
trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence. (Curcio v.
Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1, 12.)

      B.     The Trial Court Did Not Misunderstand the Law, and
             Substantial Evidence Supports Its Issuance of the
             Restraining Order
      Voss argues that in order for him to have been found to
have committed domestic violence, and in order for the
restraining order against him to be proper, he must have had
some “evil” intention or motive in committing the acts in
question. In so arguing, Voss cites the Penal Code section 646.9
definition of criminal stalking (which requires “a credible threat
with the intent to place [a] person in reasonable fear for his or
her safety”), the Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 definition
of harassment (a course of conduct “that seriously alarms,
annoys, or harasses [a] person, and that serves no legitimate
purpose”), and the Family Code section 6320 definition of coercive
control (“unreasonably engaging” in certain enumerated
behaviors). Voss contends every action he took was based on a
desire to help Sophy and therefore could not have constituted
domestic violence.
      The trial court did not misunderstand the law. The court’s
order was based partly on its finding that Voss had disturbed

                                13
Sophy’s peace, a form of abuse under the DVPA. (Fam. Code,
§§ 6203, subd. (a)(4); 6320, subd. (c).) “‘[D]isturbing the peace of
the other party’ refers to conduct that, based on the totality of the
circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the
other party. This conduct may be committed directly or
indirectly, including through the use of a third party, and by any
method or through any means including, but not limited to,
telephone, online accounts, text messages, internet-connected
devices, or other electronic technologies. This conduct includes,
but is not limited to, coercive control, which is a pattern of
behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a
person’s free will and personal liberty.” (Fam. Code, § 6320,
subd. (c), italics added.) The court’s finding that Voss had
disturbed Sophy’s peace did not require Voss to have had any
particular intent in committing the relevant behavior. While
“coercive control” is a form of disturbing a party’s peace and an
“[e]xample” of coercive control involves “unreasonably engaging
in” specified behaviors, the trial court did not find Voss engaged
in “coercive control.”
       The trial court’s restraining order is also supported by
sufficient evidence. Voss placed five GPS trackers and two
recording devices in Sophy’s vehicles over the course of
approximately three months. He used those tracking devices to
follow Sophy to a location on at least three occasions. The first
time, he took advantage of an opportunity to enter an apartment
belonging to individuals he did not know in hopes of discovering
Sophy there. Though he did not encounter Sophy, Sophy was
present in the apartment and was affected by Voss’s actions. The
second time, Voss used the tracker to locate Sophy’s car the night
it happened to have serious trouble and tracked it to a junkyard,

                                 14
after which he admitted to Son that he had tracked Sophy. The
third time, Voss tracked Sophy to a restaurant, which he
observed Sophy entering with a companion. The same day, he
visited the dealership where he knew Sophy was set to pick up
his new car, and both planted a tracker on the new car and asked
the salesperson to place a framed photograph of Sophy, Voss, and
Son in the car. Sophy was disgusted, scared, and shocked when
he discovered the framed photograph. The evidence of Voss’s
actions was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that
Voss’s behavior destroyed Sophy’s mental or emotional calm.8

      C.     Substantial Evidence Supports the Trial Court’s
             Order Excluding Voss from the Beverly Hills
             Residence
      The DVPA authorizes a court to issue a restraining order
excluding a person from the “family dwelling” or “common
dwelling of both parties . . . on the conditions the court
determines, regardless of which party . . . is the lessee of the
dwelling.” (Fam. Code, § 6321, subd. (a); see § 6218, subd. (b).)
“The court may issue an exclusion order[, however,] only on a
showing that: (1) the party who will stay in the dwelling has a
right under color of law to possess the property; (2) the party to
be excluded has assaulted or threaten[ed] to assault the other
party; and (3) physical or emotional harm would otherwise result
to the other party. (Fam. Code, §§ 6321, subd. (b)(1)-(3), 6340,

8
      We therefore need not resolve Voss’s arguments regarding
the definitions of “stalking” and “harassment” in Family Code
section 6320.

                                15
subd. (a)(1).) And finally, the court also has authority to issue
orders determining the temporary use, possession, and control of
real or personal property of the parties and the payment of any
liens or encumbrances coming due during the period the order is
in effect. (Fam. Code, § 6324.)” (Nicole G. v. Braithwaite (2020)
49 Cal.App.5th 990, 999.)
       Voss contends the trial court erred in excluding him from
the Beverly Hills residence because Sophy presented no evidence
that Voss assaulted or threatened to assault either Sophy or Son.9
That does not square with the record. Son testified Voss had
previously threatened to kill Sophy. He also testified Sophy and
Voss engaged in an altercation in his presence when Voss shoved
Sophy. Sophy also testified that during an argument (the
argument Son overheard but did not witness), Voss slapped
Sophy. This testimony satisfied the statutory requirements for
an order excluding Voss from the family home.

       D.    Voss’s Remaining Arguments Are Forfeited
       “To demonstrate error, [an] appellant must present
meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and
citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.”
(In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) An appellant’s
“burden requires more than a mere assertion that the judgment
is wrong. ‘Issues do not have a life of their own: If they are not
raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, [they

9
      Voss does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to
the other two requirements for an exclusion order under Family
Code section 6321.

                                16
are] . . . waived.’ [Citation.] It is not our place to construct
theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the
presumption of correctness. When 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.” (Benach
v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852.)
       Three of the six sections of Voss’s brief—those arguing that
Voss was denied a fair hearing, that the trial court erred in
finding Sophy’s credibility irrelevant, and that there was no
evidence Son and the dogs should have been included as
protected persons under the restraining order—are comprised
solely of quotations from the record with conclusory assertions of
error. That is not enough. Without a developed argument for
why the trial court erred, the points are forfeited. (Cahill v. San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956; see
also Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881
[appellants challenging the sufficiency of the evidence must set
forth in their brief all the material evidence on the point and not
merely their own evidence; “the error is deemed to be waived” if
this is not done].)

                                17
                          DISPOSITION
     The trial court’s order is affirmed. Sophy is awarded costs
on appeal.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                           BAKER, J.

We concur:

     RUBIN, P. J.

     KIM, J.

                               18