Pfrang v. Amoroso CA4/3

Filed 5/1/25 Pfrang v. Amoroso 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MAYUMI PFRANG,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063130

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022-01298138)

JULIE RENEE AMOROSO, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carol L. Henson, Judge. Affirmed. Mayumi Pfrang, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Julie Renee Amoroso, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Plaintiff and appellant Mayumi Pfrang appeals from an order denying her request for a restraining order against defendant and respondent Julie Renee Amoroso. Pfrang sought the restraining order pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, Welfare and Institutions Code section 15600 et seq. (the Elder Abuse Act). Pfrang argues the trial court erred by not permitting an excused witness to return and testify on the last day of trial as a rebuttal witness. We affirm. Most of the questions which Pfrang claims she would have asked the witness exceeded the scope of her offers of proof at trial. Some of the questions were or could have been answered by Pfrang’s testimony, and Pfrang has not provided us an adequate record to determine whether other questions would have elicited relevant testimony. FACTS AND THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS The information we have about this case is limited because the only items in the clerk’s transcript are the register of actions, a minute order dated September 5, 2023, Pfrang’s notice of appeal, and Pfrang’s designation of record on appeal. An evidentiary hearing was conducted over four days— April 26, May 22, July 11, and September 5, 2023—yet the reporter’s transcript is limited to the final day. Seven exhibits, including three video recordings, were received into evidence, but no exhibits have been transmitted to us. What we do know is that on December 22, 2022, Pfrang filed a request for an elder or dependent adult restraining order against Amoroso. On that same day, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order against Amoroso and issued an order to show cause. On September 5, 2023, the trial court made findings on the record and issued a minute order denying Pfrang’s request for a restraining order.