Gamboa v. Molina CA2/8

Filed 9/3/13 Gamboa v. Molina CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RAUL GAMBOA, B244650

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS 139426) v.

PEDRO ANASTACIO MOLINA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. Mark Luevano, Temporary Judge, and Carol Boas Goodson, Judge. Affirmed.

Raul Gamboa, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Pedro Anastacio Molina, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

____________________________________

SUMMARY Plaintiff Raul Gamboa appeals from orders denying his request for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant Pedro Anastacio Molina, plaintiff‟s brother-in-law, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm the orders. FACTS On September 19, 2012, plaintiff filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant. Plaintiff alleged a three-year “pattern & practice of harassment & intimidation,” with the most recent harassment being defendant‟s July 2, 2012 request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against plaintiff, a request that was denied. The alleged harassment began in late 2008, after plaintiff began the process of evicting defendant and his wife, plaintiff‟s sister, from the premises where they resided, near plaintiff‟s home. Plaintiff sought, in addition to stay-away orders, an order that defendant “[m]ay not file any[] [c]laim accusing [plaintiff and family members] of wrong doing with any public or private entity including: employers; social medium without notifying the Court within the next business [day] of your actions & providing a copy of this Order to the entity/agency.” Plaintiff sought an immediate order “that the office of L.A. District Attorney, Child Protective Services & Law Enforcement be notified of this order.” Plaintiff‟s description of the alleged harassment recited events occurring from September 2008 through July 2012. These included: (1) a report of child abuse and neglect by plaintiff and his wife in September 2008, by an anonymous caller (allegedly defendant), concluded as unfounded; (2) an office hearing before the district attorney on September 30, 2008, based on charges by defendant‟s wife that plaintiff committed a battery (dismissed by the district attorney); (3) a criminal misdemeanor proceeding that began in December 2008, in which defendant complained that plaintiff brandished a weapon and made criminal threats; plaintiff was found not guilty in August 2010, and his petition to seal and destroy the arrest records under Penal Code section 851.8 was granted in August 2011; (4) a notification from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing in June 2009 of the closure of a discrimination complaint defendant and his wife made