Cielo v. Payne CA2/6

Filed 6/4/25 Cielo v. Payne CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CHERINE CIELO, 2d Civ. No. B340404 (Super. Ct. No. 24CV-0158) Petitioner and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

SHERRY VINCENT PAYNE,

Respondent.

Appellant Cherine Cielo petitioned for a civil harassment restraining order against respondent Sherry Vincent Payne under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.1 Respondent answered the petition but did not cross-petition for an order against appellant. At hearing, the trial court found their “mutual pattern of ongoing harassment” warranted mutual restraining orders. The parties agreed; the court entered the orders.

1 All further unmarked statutory references are to the Code

of Civil Procedure.

Appellant promptly moved to vacate, arguing the court lacked authority to issue mutual orders because respondent did not file a cross-petition. Doing so, she asserted, contravened section 527.6 and violated her due process rights. The court denied the motion to vacate. We will affirm the orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant worked at a doctor’s office where respondent received acupuncture treatment. Respondent alleges appellant began a romantic relationship with her husband around January of 2022. This led to respondent and her husband divorcing. Appellant sought a restraining order against respondent in March of 2024. Her petition alleged respondent harassed her by, among other things, stalking her home, filing false police reports, and leaving defamatory voicemails at the doctor’s office where she worked. Respondent accused appellant of similar behaviors. She submitted a responsive declaration and a 45-page compendium of exhibits but did not cross-petition for her own restraining order against appellant. Trial took place on March 22, 2024. The court entered mutual restraining orders “based upon the request and agreement of both parties.” Appellant moved to vacate the mutual restraining orders on April 3. She argued the court lacked authority to issue an order against her because respondent did not cross-petition for relief. The trial court set the hearing on the motion to vacate for July 31. It denied appellant’s request to advance the hearing to an earlier date. Respondent filed her own section 527.6 petition against appellant on April 12, 2024. Appellant opposed the motion and filed a notice of related cases. The court decided to take no action