Tejeda v. Marky CA4/1

Filed 3/21/25 Tejeda v. Marky CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AMANDA TEJEDA, D083793

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2023- 00048154-CU-HR-CTL) LOUIS MICHAEL MARKY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John T. Feeney, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Humboldt Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Louis Michael Marky, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Louis Michael Marky, a self-represented litigant, appeals an order granting a civil harassment restraining order against him under Code of Civil

Procedure1 section 527.6 in favor of Amanda Tejeda, her husband, and her

1 Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

daughter for a period of three years (expiring on December 26, 2026). Marky essentially contends the granting of the restraining order was not supported by the evidence. Tejeda has not filed a respondent’s brief. We affirm the order. BACKGROUND On November 6, 2023, Tejeda filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Marky for the benefit of herself as well as her husband and daughter. Marky and Tejeda are neighbors in the same apartment complex. Tejeda claimed that Marky verbally threatened her and her family, brandished a gun, looked through her home’s window, had cameras facing her residence, made several unwanted texts and calls to her, and followed Tejeda and her daughter when they left their home. In addition, Tejeda included a detailed account of several occurrences when Tejeda had allegedly harassed her and/or her family. The court granted a temporary restraining order in part, denying Tejeda’s request that the restraining order include her dog. The temporary restraining order was to expire on November 30, 2023 when the hearing on the request for a civil harassment restraining order was set to be heard. On November 30, 2023, the court granted Tejeda’s request to reissue the temporary restraining order to allow time to serve Marky. In addition, the court continued the hearing date on the civil harassment restraining order to December 26, 2023. On December 21, 2023, Marky filed a response to the request for a civil harassment restraining order. There, Marky claimed that he did not own any firearms and denied all the allegations of harassment contained in Tejeda’s request. He also submitted the declaration of the landlord of the apartment complex. In that declaration, among other things, the landlord