Campos v. Stone CA2/6

Filed 3/27/14 Campos v. Stone CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

ELIZABETH CAMPOS, 2d Civil No. B249029 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2013-00435632- Plaintiff and Appellant, CU-HR-VTA ) (Ventura County) v.

ROBERT STONE,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Campos appeals a judgment denying her application for a harassment injunction (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6) against defendant Robert Stone. We conclude, among other things, that: 1) Campos has not shown that the trial court was biased against her, and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying injunctive relief. We affirm. FACTS Campos and Stone are neighbors. Campos installed security cameras and lights on her house. Stone was upset because he claimed one of those cameras "points directly at the front door" of his house. Campos filed a request for a temporary restraining order claiming that Stone had harassed and threatened her. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order against Stone and set the case for a hearing.

Campos testified that "someone had dumped a bucket of . . . gasoline on the front of [her] property . . . ." She believed it was Stone. She said Stone had "yanked out" lights she had installed on her house, and that Stone and his friends had brandished rifles and made statements that frightened her. Stone testified that Campos's accusations were not true. He said, "[A]pparently she has a paranoia of people breaking into her house. . . . I've never ever been on her property. . . . I really try to avoid this woman to the best of my ability." He said Campos's testimony about the rifle incident "is a total lie." He said, "Maybe she saw us putting guns in the back of the truck to go target shooting one day, but that is the extent of it." The trial court found no evidence to support an injunction against Stone. It said there was no "conduct that is seriously harassing" and no "credible threat of violence that a reasonable person would be in fear of their safety." DISCUSSION Injunctive Relief for Harassment Campos contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request for injunctive relief against Stone. She claims the record shows the court was biased against her. We disagree. "A person who has suffered harassment . . . may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting [that conduct]." (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court may issue a temporary restraining order where there is "reasonable proof of harassment of the petitioner by the respondent, and that great or irreparable harm would result to the petitioner." (Id., subd. (d).) The granting or denying of injunctive relief "rests within the sound discretion of the trial court and may not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion." (California Assn. of Dispensing Opticians v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 419, 425.) We review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment. An appellate court "must resolve all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the prevailing