Zelaya v. Arnold CA6

Filed 11/21/25 Zelaya v. Arnold CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CINDY ZELAYA, H052621 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 23CH012010)

v.

TIMOTHY ARNOLD,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Cindy Zelaya obtained a temporary civil harassment restraining order against her neighbor, respondent Timothy Arnold. Before a permanent order could issue, Zelaya voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. The trial court then awarded Arnold $7500 in prevailing party attorney fees and costs. Zelaya now appeals that order. Finding no abuse of discretion in the award, we will affirm the order. I. BACKGROUND

Zelaya and Arnold were residents of the same condominium complex. Their children often played together in Arnold’s home. After an incident where Arnold yelled at and physically escorted Zelaya’s son out of his home, Zelaya filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Arnold seeking protection for herself, her son, her mother, and her father. The court issued a temporary restraining order and set the matter for hearing to address a permanent order. Before the hearing, the parties attempted to negotiate a settlement. Although the parties were unable to resolve the matter, Zelaya dismissed the entire action without prejudice during negotiations.

Arnold moved for prevailing party attorney fees and costs and requested sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 128.5, 527.6, subd. (s), 1032.) Arnold argued that he was entitled to fees and costs as a prevailing party because dismissal was entered in his favor. He further argued that sanctions were appropriate because Zelaya’s frivolous request caused his information to be entered into the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) database. Zelaya opposed the motion, arguing Arnold was not the prevailing party because the matter was dismissed without prejudice and the harassment only stopped as a result of the temporary restraining order. Zelaya further argued that even if Arnold were entitled to fees, his request was unreasonable. As to sanctions, Zelaya argued they were not warranted because her claim was not frivolous and Arnold did not separately file a proper sanctions motion complying with Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. Zelaya made a counter request for sanctions against Arnold under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, subdivision (g). The trial court determined Arnold was entitled to attorney fees and costs but ordered counsel for both parties to submit supplemental briefing on the amount of fees to be awarded. Arnold’s counsel submitted a supplemental brief with a supporting declaration breaking down the fees, and Zelaya submitted an opposition. After receiving Zelaya’s opposition, the court sua sponte vacated its previous order on fees and costs and reset the matter for hearing. Both parties submitted an opposition and response to the court’s sua sponte order. After the trial court heard argument, it reinstated its earlier order and granted Arnold’s motion for prevailing party fees and costs in the amount of $7,500. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (s).) The trial court did not rule on either party’s request for sanctions. II. DISCUSSION