Winston v. Cebrick CA2/1

Filed 8/22/25 Winston v. Cebrick CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

LORENZO WINSTON, B339088

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 24IWRO00492) v.

LAURA LEE CEBRICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia Jo Titus, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Lee Cebrick, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Laura Lee Cebrick appeals in propria persona from a grant of a civil harassment restraining order sought against her by Lorenzo Winston. Winston has not filed a respondent’s brief. Cebrick claims the trial court erred in granting Winston’s restraining order based solely on Winston’s uncorroborated testimony, and the court further erred by excluding evidence offered by Cebrick. We reject these contentions and affirm.

BACKGROUND Cebrick was the lessee of an apartment and Winston the sublessee. At times they lived together as roommates in the apartment. Tensions arose between them, and they each filed civil harassment restraining order requests against the other. In his restraining order request, Winston alleged that on April 6, 2024, he came home to find “raw chicken, clams and other substances ha[d] been spread all over my belongings . . . .” He claimed Cebrick was the only person who had access to the apartment, and she also monitored his social media to know when he would not be home. He further claimed on earlier occasions Cebrick had assaulted him and stolen his property, had falsified police reports claiming Winston had battered her, and had brought men to the apartment to intimidate him. Cebrick’s restraining order request is not in the record on appeal. The trial court heard both restraining order requests at the same hearing. The parties testified and the court reviewed documentary and video evidence. The court returned the exhibits to the parties at the end of the hearing and the exhibits, including the videos and photographs, are not in the record before us.