Court Opinion

ID: 9947807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 18:04:35.182332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:35.488867
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/5/24 Sandoval v. Masalta CA1/1
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 ONE

 GLORIA CASTRO SANDOVAL,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A167739
 v.
 FLOYD MASALTA,                                                         (San Mateo County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. 17-FAM-02440)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         Defendant Floyd Masalta, appearing in propria persona, appeals from a
trial court order granting the request of plaintiff Gloria Sandoval for a
domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against him under the Domestic
Violence Prevention Act (Act) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.). Masalta claims the
court abused its discretion in various respects by issuing a DVRO and erred
by awarding attorney fees to Sandoval.2 But he has failed to carry his
appellate burden of demonstrating reversible error because he has not
provided a record sufficient to evaluate the court’s rulings. (See Ballard v.
Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) Accordingly, we affirm.

         1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(2).
         2 Sandoval did not file a respondent’s brief.

                                                               1
       In 2016, Sandoval met Masalta, who was married, at the church they
both attended. They dated for about 18 months. Sandoval testified that from
the beginning of their relationship, Masalta was controlling and abusive, and
he forced her to have sex with him. He also threatened her, including by
indicating he would humiliate her in front of other church members if she left
him.
       Sandoval testified that in September 2017, Masalta surprised her in a
Costco parking lot and grabbed her cell phone when she tried to call for help.
A bystander helped her retrieve the phone, and she called the police after she
drove away and Masalta followed her. When the police arrived, Sandoval
declined to have Masalta arrested. Later that month, however, she filed a
DVRO request.
       A temporary restraining order issued, and Masalta was served with it
on October 30, 2017. Sandoval testified that later that night, she learned he
had sent a letter to their pastor and members of their congregation
containing information that made her “distraught.” After this incident,
Masalta sent her disturbing text messages and emails, and she worried that
he was following her.
       In June 2018, Sandoval reported to the police that Masalta had
violated the temporary restraining order, initiating a criminal case against
him in Santa Clara County. Meanwhile, the hearing on Sandoval’s DVRO
request was continued numerous times, including because of the criminal
case and the COVID-19 pandemic, and did not occur until March 2023.
       At the March 2023 hearing, Sandoval testified to the incidents set forth
above. She stated she had moved out of the area because she did not feel
safe. Although she had not had any contact with Masalta since 2018, she was
still afraid of him and worried that he would continue to harass her. Several

                                       2
exhibits were admitted into evidence, including the letter Masalta sent to
church members; text messages and emails; and evidence of attorney fees
and other expenses Sandoval incurred because of Masalta. Masalta, who was
represented by counsel below, did not testify or offer any evidence.
      The trial court granted Sandoval’s request and issued a three-year
DVRO against Masalta. The court found that he engaged in conduct
constituting abuse under the Act and that his actions after the temporary
restraining order, including sending the church letter, sufficed to give
Sandoval “a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.” The court also
awarded her about $12,600 in expenses, including $10,500 in attorney fees.
      Masalta elected to proceed by clerk’s transcript in his notice
designating the record on appeal, but he did not request any documents other
than those required under California Rules of Court, rule 8.122(b). Thus, the
record before us does not contain documents predating the March 2023
hearing, including the DVRO request itself. Nor did Masalta ask that any of
the exhibits admitted at that hearing be transmitted to this court.
      “ ‘It is the duty of an appellant to provide an adequate record to the
[appellate] court establishing error. Failure to provide an adequate record on
an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the] appellant.
[Citation.]’ [Citation.] This principle stems from the well-established rule of
appellate review that a judgment or order is presumed correct and the
appellant has the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error.” (Hotels
Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.)
Lacking the DVRO request and all the evidence the trial court considered in
issuing the DVRO and awarding attorney fees, we cannot evaluate Masalta’s
claims. Therefore, we must presume the court’s order is correct. (See, e.g.,

                                       3
Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295–1296; Gee v. American
Realty & Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.)
      The trial court’s March 8, 2023 order is affirmed. Sandoval is entitled
to her costs on appeal, if any.

                                      4
                                          _________________________
                                          Humes, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Banke, J.

_________________________
Castro, J.*

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

Sandoval v. Masalta A167739

                                      5