Court Opinion

ID: 9384380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 18:04:16.64207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:52.725049
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/3/23 Shadow Mountain View Condominium v. Antonyan CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

SHADOW MOUNTAIN VIEW                                           B317102
CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.,                                             (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. 21CHRO01311)
         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

VARDAN ANTONYAN,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Armando Duron, Commissioner. Affirmed.

     Vardan Antonyan, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.

     Kriger Law Firm and Garrett M. Wait for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

                                    _________________________
                        INTRODUCTION
      Vardan Antonyan appeals the workplace violence
restraining order entered against him to protect Tarek Kazamel,
the board president of respondent Shadow Mountain View
Condominium Association, Inc. (HOA or Association), and
Kazamel’s family.
      Antonyan presents many arguments on appeal. Because he
has not provided sufficient argument or citation to legal authority
to support his contentions, we find his appeal forfeited.
      We affirm the order granting the restraining order.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       We glean the following information from the record
provided us, which includes two minute orders, appellant’s notice
designating the record on appeal, the notice of appeal and the
register of actions (i.e., case summary), the reporter’s transcript
of the trial on October 15, 2021, documents designated in a
motion to augment the record Exhibits A through J, and the trial
court’s October 15, 2021 order after hearing that forms the basis
of this appeal.
       On September 16, 2021, the HOA filed a petition for a
workplace violence restraining order against appellant. On
October 15, 2021, the trial court presided at a hearing on the
petition and issued a workplace violence restraining order as
requested. The order directs appellant not to harass, molest,
strike, assault, batter, abuse, destroy personal property of, or
disturb the peace of Tarek Kazamel, Dian Galle (Tarek Kazamel’s
spouse), and Youssif Kazamel (their son). It also prohibits
appellant from following, stalking, and contacting the protected
persons except “with regards to HOA compliance in writing.”

                                 2
Appellant is also ordered to stay at least 10 yards away from the
protected persons and Tarek Kazamel’s vehicle.
       Witnesses Richard Gevorkyan, Tarek Kazamel, Dian Galle,
and Irene Wade testified at the hearing on behalf of the HOA.
Appellant testified briefly on his own behalf. The trial court also
considered declarations by Dian Galle and Irene Wade that were
filed in anticipation of the hearing.
       The testimony revolved around the Kazamel’s decision, on
behalf of the HOA, to tow appellant’s car when it was parked in a
spot clearly marked and reserved for visitor parking. In reaction
to the towing, appellant parked one of his cars in the same spot
that afternoon and he and Kazamel confronted one another about
the towing. The HOA argued appellant showed aggression,
pounding on the Kazamels’ door and blocking their vehicle, which
caused the protected persons to fear for their safety.
       At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court made the
following findings. “With respect to the Association’s request on
behalf of Mr. Kazamel, Ms. Wade, Ms. Dian Galle and their
seven-year-old son, the court finds that the Association has met
its burden by clear and convincing evidence.
       “[¶] The court was not persuaded by the testimony of Mr.
Rick Gevorkyan, and there was contradictory evidence as to
whether or not there were postings on the vehicle prior to towing.
       “[¶] . . . [¶]
       “[¶] It appears the first incident did result from Mr.
Antonyan going over to the premises of . . . Mr. Kazamel. And
while he says he was just there to find out what happened with
his vehicle, Exhibit E shows a lot more aggression through via
the middle finder pointed at the home, presumably at Mr.
Kazamel.

                                 3
       “[¶] But more telling—and the court felt the fear that Ms.
Galle felt during that incident as she testified about it and, I
think, very credibly.
       “[¶] Secondly, Ms. Wade’s testimony—and this is why this
document was actually very—practically, the most critical
evidence of everything that I saw, and that is the schematic or
the site plan of the complex.
       “[¶] Because it’s clear that Mr. Antonyan, after the first
incident in which he goes to the Kazamels’ property, then in the
second incident, essentially, chases after the Kazamels,
presumably to take a picture of their vehicle.
       “[¶] Why he needed to take a picture of their vehicle at that
point in time, I don’t know. It’s unclear to me why that was so
important or why any attorney would advise him to do so. I don’t
know what the relevance is of taking the picture.
       “[¶] But assuming it was, it put the Kazamels, and
especially Ms. Galle, in fear. And that was clear in the video.
       “[¶] While he may not have been as close to them as – and
actually blocked their exit, they felt blocked. And they felt
blocked essentially—if you look from where they came out of their
unit and as Mr. Antonyan essentially came around this way
when he was talking to Ms. Wade, he came around this way.
They had no exit. They went into the parking spot, the visitor
parking spot that was referred to repeatedly throughout the
testimony.
        “[¶] And while they may have had an exit, they felt they
didn’t. And it was reasonable for them not to feel they had an
exit because the circumstances in that moment in time were such
that they felt that no matter where they went, Mr. Antonyan was
going to follow them.

                                 4
       “[¶] And Mr. Antonyan may feel that that wasn’t his
intention, but that was the result. And this was the second
incident in the same day, which is likely to put anybody in fear of
their safety.
       “[¶] And because it was more than one, it is a pattern of
harassment as defined by the statute. It’s not just the single
incident. It’s the pattern. It’s the two incidents put together all
in one day.
       “[¶] Therefore, the court is going to grant the request. The
court is not going to, however, include Ms. Wade as an additional
protected person. I don’t find it persuasive enough that Mr.
Antonyan was trying to harass her.
       “[¶] He was angry. And he was complaining, but I don’t
think he was trying to harass her, and she was not the object of
his attention.
       “[¶] It was, in fact, Mr. Kazamel, in his capacity as
president of the Association, and certainly his wife. And I would
be expected that a seven-year-old would feel equally threatened
and scared by all that’s going on. And, therefore, we’re going to
include both Ms. Galle and their son Youssif as additional
protected persons.
       “[¶] These orders will expire on October 15th, 2022, at
midnight.”
       This appeal followed.
                          DISCUSSION
       Appellant presents many arguments on appeal, the
primary ones being that the trial court was swayed by
misinformation and the perjury committed by all the witnesses;
the trial court showed extreme bias, and the bench officer was
“emotionally driven” in his decision because he was unduly

                                 5
affected by “two beautiful witnesses Irene and [Dian]” and felt
compelled to render a favorable decision “to impress those two
beautiful women.” Indeed, appellant argues he “finds it
disturbing that he remembers [the judge’s] attraction and almost
arousal by those witnesses and is sure that [the] judge abused his
position.”
        We are mindful appellant is representing himself on
appeal; nevertheless, he “is to be treated like any other party and
is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other
litigants and attorneys.” (Barton v. New United Motor
Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.) He is
bound to follow fundamental rules of appellate review, including:
“[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.”
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.) “ ‘All
intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on
matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be
affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) To overcome this presumption, an appellant
must provide a record that allows for meaningful review of the
challenged order. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011)
198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.)
        We were provided the reporter’s transcript of the October
15, 2021 proceeding. However, we note he makes generalized
and conclusory legal statements throughout his brief. He refers
to no case law or authority to support his rather conclusory and
bare-boned arguments. An appellant who does not provide

                                 6
adequate legal authority and analysis to support a contention
forfeits that contention. (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009)
178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) It is not our role to develop the
appellant’s legal theories or arguments on appeal. We treat an
issue and/or argument as waived “ ‘ “[w]hen an appellant fails to
raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned
argument and citations to authority.” ’ ” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas
& Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956.) “The absence of
cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to
treat the contentions as waived.” (In re Marriage of Falcone &
Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830; see also Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [“support each point [in a brief] by
argument and, if possible, by citation of authority”].)
       We also note that we do not reexamine on appeal a trial
court’s credibility determinations. (Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.
(2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1437.)
       Appellant’s failure to provide adequate legal discussion and
cogent argument with references to relevant evidence preclude us
from entertaining his arguments on appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm.

                                 7
                          DISPOSITION
      The workplace violence restraining order is affirmed. Costs
are awarded to respondent Shadow Mountain View
Condominium Association, Inc.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                    STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             WILEY, J.

                                8