Gibson v. Gilani CA2/8

Filed 2/26/14 Gibson v. Gilani CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

NATASHA GIBSON, B246809

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GQ009105) v.

POOYA GILANI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mary Thornton House, Judge. Affirmed.

Tabibnia Law Firm and Cyrus S. Tabibnia for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiff Natasha Gibson sought a civil harassment restraining order against defendant Pooya Gilani, claiming her former boyfriend sent threatening text messages to her and showed up at her work uninvited. Finding clear and convincing evidence in support of the requested order, the trial court issued a permanent restraining order. On appeal, defendant contends insufficient evidence supports the order, and that the trial court relied on inadmissible hearsay. We conclude there is substantial evidence supporting the order, and that defendant waived his right to appeal the admission of any hearsay testimony because he did not object on this basis in the trial court. We therefore affirm. FACTS Plaintiff testified that she and defendant dated for four years. They ended their relationship in February 2012. Shortly after they broke up, plaintiff received threatening text messages from defendant. On February 2, 2012, defendant texted, “If you’ve gone to the gym again, you’re in big trouble. If so, then you’re forbidden going to the gym for one entire week since you did not do what I asked you.” On February 4, 2012, defendant texted, “If you are ready to take the punishment, let me know.” Plaintiff later received texts urging her to meet with defendant “face-to-face.” For example, on March 23, 2012, defendant texted, “If you don’t provide us a time, I’m going to your home now, then to Macy’s where [plaintiff] works, all your friends until I find you.” Defendant also showed up at plaintiff’s home and refused to leave for 45 minutes. Plaintiff and her mother moved from Burbank to Glendale “to get away from [defendant]” because they felt “a little bit scared” and “bothered” by defendant. Defendant did not contact plaintiff between April 24, 2012, and October 11, 2012, when she received an e-mail from him stating that he wanted to give her a letter. She did not respond to this e-mail. Defendant sent plaintiff a second e-mail on October 13, 2012, asking why plaintiff had not responded to his first e-mail. Once again, plaintiff did not respond. On October 19, 2012, defendant unexpectedly showed up at the Macy’s where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff’s co-workers were watching the encounter, as plaintiff “had previously told [her] co-workers about this stalking situation beforehand.” Plaintiff told