Jadidi v. Ibarra CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Sep 5, 2025 No. B330697Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a civil harassment restraining order and the subsequent award of attorney fees to the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide cogent legal arguments or proper record citations on appeal. Additionally, the court noted that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings and that the findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for a civil harassment restraining order.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the defendant.
Whether the appellant forfeited her claims on appeal by failing to provide adequate legal argument and record citations.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden on appeal.”

“The orders denying the petition and granting attorney fees to defendant are affirmed.”

“Our independent review of the record demonstrates that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied plaintiff’s petition”

Filed 9/5/25 Jadidi v. Ibarra CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

MOJGAN JADIDI, B330697

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 22CHRO02103)

ROSA IBARRA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lee S. Arian, Judge. Affirmed. Mojgan Jadidi, self-represented litigant, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin and Daniel Medioni for Defendant and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mojgan Jadidi appeals from an order denying her petition for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant Rosa Ibarra (petition) and a subsequent award of attorney fees to defendant as the prevailing party. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

On November 3, 2022, plaintiff filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.61, alleging that defendant had engaged in a course of conduct in October 2022 by entering plaintiff’s home without permission and not leaving when told to do so. Plaintiff also alleged that on October 25, 2022, defendant “ambush[ed]” plaintiff, caused two men to “stalk” plaintiff by having the men park their car “close to” plaintiff’s driveway, and destroyed plaintiff’s personal property, namely, cameras. Plaintiff explained that she telephoned 911 in response. Plaintiff also alleged that on October 31, 2022, defendant returned to plaintiff’s property and “instigate[d] fear and unsafety.” On December 23, 2022, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the petition at which both plaintiff and defendant testified. Plaintiff complained of defendant’s harassment, which plaintiff described as comprised of visiting her townhome, taking photographs, and trying to remove the security cameras plaintiff had installed outside of her residence. Defendant testified she was the property manager and the administrative assistant to

Jadidi v. Ibarra CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MOJGAN JADIDI, B330697

ROSA IBARRA,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief