California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 2014 No. D063164Unpublished
Filed 2/24/14 Staples v. Bailey CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TRINA STAPLES, D063164
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. DVN20439)
DIANNA BAILEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Martin W.
Staven, Judge. Affirmed.
Dianna Bailey, in pro. per. for Defendant and Appellant
Trina Staples, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Dianna Bailey, proceeding in propia persona, appeals from an order of
the trial court restraining her from contacting and/or harassing respondent Trina Staples.1
Bailey contends that the issuance of the restraining order was "unjust," apparently
because, she maintains, the order was based on a number of "fabrications" made by
Staples in her declaration in support of Staples's request for a restraining order.
We conclude that Bailey has failed to meet her burden on appeal to set forth a
cognizable legal argument demonstrating how the trial court erred, and has also failed to
provide an adequate record to permit meaningful appellate review. We therefore affirm
the order of the trial court.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The record presented in this appeal is extremely limited. As a result, the factual
and procedural background will necessarily be brief.2
1 Staples also appears in propria persona in these appellate proceedings.
2 The record of the proceedings in the trial court consists of a clerk's transcript, which contains a total of five documents that were filed in the trial court: (1) a copy of the temporary restraining order, dated September 21, 2012; (2) a copy of the permanent restraining order, dated October 12, 2012; (3) a copy of the notice of appeal, dated December 12, 2012; (4) a copy of "Appellant's Notice Designating Record on Appeal," dated January 18, 2013; and (5) a copy of "Respondent's Notice Designating Record on Appeal," dated February 4, 2013. These documents establish that if not for Staples's request to include some of the documents in the record on appeal, no documents from the trial court proceedings would have been included in the clerk's transcript. 2
Staples, appearing in propia persona in the trial court, sought a domestic violence
restraining order against Bailey, her ex-girlfriend, on September 21, 2012. Although
these facts are not found in the record on appeal, both parties appear to agree in their
briefing on appeal that they were engaged in a romantic relationship over approximately
a five-year period, and that at the time Staples sought the restraining order, their romantic
relationship had ended.
In response to Staples's request, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order
which prohibited Bailey from, among other things, harassing, threatening, stalking, or
contacting Staples, or trying to find Staples's address. The order also required Bailey to
stay at least 100 feet away from Staples, Staples's home, workplace, vehicle, and/or
school.
The hearing on the request for a permanent restraining order was set for October
12, 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted a permanent restraining
order, which is in effect until October 11, 2017.3 The permanent order prohibits Bailey
from doing the same things identified in the temporary restraining order.
Bailey filed a notice of appeal from the permanent restraining order on December
12, 2012.
3 Bailey concedes in briefing that she did not appear at the hearing on October 12, 2012. 3
III.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Bailey contends that Staples made false statements about Bailey in
support of the request for a restraining order. Bailey requests that this court "remove the
restraining order that was put in place on 10/12/12 because there has never been any
history of domestic violence the whole 7 years [the parties] have known each other . . . ."
An " 'order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all
intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.' [Citation.]"
(Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718.) An appellant has the burden of
affirmatively showing prejudicial error (City and County of San Francisco v. Funches
(1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 243, 244-245) and of ensuring that an adequate record exists for
review (In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102). The presumption of correctness also
imposes a burden on the appellant to present argument and authority on each point;
otherwise, the point is deemed abandoned. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
An appellate court is not required to discuss or consider points that are not adequately
presented. (Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.) In addition, the
fact that an appellant proceeds in propia persona does not alter these standards, as "[p]ro.
per. litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys." (Kobayashi v. Superior Court
(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.)
Bailey has stated no identifiable legal issue, nor has she supported any issue that
she raises in her brief with a cognizable legal argument. In her briefing on appeal, Bailey
fails to make any legal arguments to support any theory of error. Without such a
4
showing, we must resolve the appeal against her (Hernandez v. California Hospital
Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502).
In addition, as our statement of the factual background of this case suggests, it is
not at all clear what occurred in the proceedings in the trial court. The extremely limited
record presented on appeal is wholly inadequate to permit us to conduct any meaningful
review. Thus, although Bailey suggests that the allegations supporting the restraining
order were false, and specifically asserts that Staples's "entire declaration was full of
fabrications," we have no way of assessing the facts on which the trial court relied
because the record does not contain the declaration or other supporting documentation
that Staples presented to the trial court. It is incumbent on the appellant to provide an
adequate record for the appellate court to review. Bailey's failure to do so requires that
any issue be resolved against her. (See Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012)
203 Cal.App.4th 336, 348.) For this reason, as well, we must affirm the trial court's
order. (See ibid.)
5
IV.
DISPOSITION
The order of the trial court is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's issuance of a restraining order because the appellant failed to provide an adequate record for review and failed to present any cognizable legal arguments demonstrating trial court error.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in issuing a permanent restraining order based on alleged fabrications in the respondent's declaration.
Whether the appellant met the burden of providing an adequate record for appellate review.
Whether the appellant presented cognizable legal arguments to support a claim of error.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude that Bailey has failed to meet her burden on appeal to set forth a cognizable legal argument demonstrating how the trial court erred, and has also failed to provide an adequate record to permit meaningful appellate review.”
“The extremely limited record presented on appeal is wholly inadequate to permit us to conduct any meaningful review.”