Jarvinen v. Giubbolini CA4/3

Filed 10/4/13 Jarvinen v. Giubbolini CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

HOLLY JARVINEN

Plaintiff and Respondent, G047721

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12V001931)

LUIGI GIUBBOLINI, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Affirmed. Luigi Giubbolini, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Severson & Werson and Matthew J. Esposito for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant and appellant Luigi Giubbolini appeals from a restraining order issued against him in favor of plaintiff and respondent Holly Jarvinen pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.; all further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise stated). He argues the trial court “was not legally qualified to decide the case,” there was insufficient evidence supporting the order, and the court erred both in admitting certain photographs due to lack of foundation and in dismissing his self-defense claim. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff and defendant began a relationship with each other in 2007. Both parties agree that for at least six to seven months in 2007 they were “dating exclusively.” After 2008 the parties remained in regular contact; plaintiff described the relationship as friendship that sometimes involved sexual intimacy. Just one week prior to the incident that is the subject of this action the parties engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. In September 2012 defendant and plaintiff were at plaintiff‟s home watching television in separate rooms. After approximately an hour, defendant entered plaintiff‟s bedroom and began making unwanted sexual advances towards her. He had her pinned down and was continuing his sexual advances while disregarding her commands that he stop and leave her house. After defendant grabbed her hair and shook her neck, plaintiff was able to free one of her hands and struck him in the throat with a “karate chop” movement in an attempt to get him off. He immediately stopped the attack and retreated into the bathroom. Moments later, defendant emerged from the bathroom enraged at plaintiff for striking him in a manner that “could have killed him” and proceeded to hit her twice in the face. After plaintiff fell onto the bed from the force of the blows, defendant got on top of her, slapped her multiple times in the face, and punched her in the shoulder, back