Meza v. Bailey CA2/8

Filed 7/14/14 Meza v. Bailey CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

EVELYN JOSEPHINE MEZA, B250442

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MS009426) v.

ALPHONSO BAILEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carlos P. Baker, Judge. Affirmed.

Alphonso Bailey, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

________________________________

Alphonso Bailey appeals from a civil harassment order entered against him. Bailey contends there was insufficient evidence to support the issuance of the order. The record does not include a reporter’s transcript or settled statement. We affirm the order. On June 28, 2013, following a hearing, the trial court issued a civil harassment restraining order requiring Bailey to stay away from Evelyn Meza. The order expires on June 28, 2016. The record in this case consists of a case summary, the court’s order, the notice of appeal and designation of the record, and five hearing exhibits Bailey designated to be included in the record. There is no reporter’s transcript.1 On appeal, Bailey contends there was no clear and convincing evidence that he harassed Meza within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6;2 there was insufficient evidence of a likelihood of continuing harm to Meza; and there was insufficient evidence that Meza suffered substantial emotional distress. In the absence of a reporter’s transcript or settled statement, we must reject these claims.