Sevilla v. Sandoval CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Sep 22, 2025 No. B343678Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a civil harassment restraining order because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record for review and failed to demonstrate that the alleged conduct met the statutory definition of civil harassment.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the petition for a civil harassment restraining order?
Did the appellant provide an adequate record to support a claim of reversible error?
Does the alleged conduct of the landlord constitute civil harassment under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We affirm because the tenant has provided a woefully inadequate record on appeal and because the tenant’s declaration, even if considered on its own, does not compel the issuance of the type of restraining order he seeks.”

“Sevilla has failed to show that the evidence compels a finding that he was entitled to a civil harassment restraining order against the landlord.”

“That is not enough to constitute civil harassment under the statute.”

Filed 9/22/25 Sevilla v. Sandoval CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JOSE SEVILLA, B343678

Plaintiff and Appellant (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 24STRO08185) RAMIRO SANDOVAL,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Cohen, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Jose Sevilla, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

****** A residential tenant petitioned the trial court to enter a civil harassment restraining order against his landlord. The trial court declined to do so. The tenant appeals. We affirm because the tenant has provided a woefully inadequate record on appeal and because the tenant’s declaration, even if considered on its own, does not compel the issuance of the type of restraining order he seeks. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. The Landlord-Tenant Relationship Ramiro Sandoval (the landlord) rented a house to Jose Sevilla (Sevilla) and his family. Sevilla lives in the residence with his adult brother and his parents. The lease is not in the record on appeal. According to Sevilla, the landlord pressured Sevilla’s mother to cede use of a garage parking space associated with the rental house and repeatedly entered the yard around the rental house, without advance notice, to water the lawn because he had taken away the watering hose; Sevilla considered these acts to be “a targeted form of harassment” that made him feel “unsafe and disrespected.” II. Restraining Order Petition On November 7, 2024, Sevilla filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against the landlord1 pursuant to

Sevilla v. Sandoval CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

JOSE SEVILLA, B343678

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

AI Brief