Romero v. Chen CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Sep 20, 2024 No. B333475Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the civil harassment restraining order, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record on appeal to challenge the trial court's findings or procedural conduct.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its credibility determinations and weighing of evidence.
Whether the trial court denied the appellant sufficient time to present her case.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the issuance of the restraining order.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is appellant[’s] burden to provide an adequate record on appeal.”

“To the extent the record is inadequate, we make all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment.”

“We therefore must make all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment, and presume the court properly conducted the proceedings and the evidence was sufficient to support the restraining order.”

Filed 9/20/24 Romero v. Chen CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

JESSICA ZORAIDA ROMERO, B333475

Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23WHRO01693) v.

ZAO CHEN,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Melissa C. Lyons, Judge. Affirmed. Zao Chen, in pro. per., for Appellant. Jessica Zoraida Romero, in pro. per., for Respondent. ____________________________

We decide the matter by memorandum disposition. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) Zao Chen appeals from a five-year civil harassment restraining order barring, inter alia, contact with or proximity to respondent Jessica Zoraida Romero as well as Romero’s parents and siblings. The appellate record does not contain Romero’s petition or a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the petition. The restraining order itself, however, indicates Chen personally attended the hearing. The bulk of Chen’s opening brief consists of the statement of facts, in which Chen, who identifies herself as a transgender woman with mental health issues including autism and ADHD, claims to have had a tumultuous romantic relationship with Romero. As for legal argument, Chen claims the trial court allowed the case only 10-20 minutes and did not give her sufficient time to present her case. She further claims the evidence was insufficient to support the restraining order, and Romero’s testimony was exaggerated and lacked proper context. Romero in her respondent’s brief asserts she was Chen’s case manager, assisting in providing Chen with social services and housing, and the relationship was strictly professional. Romero sought the restraining order after Chen began harassing her, including making threats against Romero and her family and coming to Romero’s home.1

Romero v. Chen CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

JESSICA ZORAIDA ROMERO, B333475

ZAO CHEN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WEINGART, J.

AI Brief