ARM v. Bruzzone CA6

Filed 7/17/14 ARM v. Bruzzone CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ARM, INC., H039438 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 1-12-CH-004644)

v.

MICHAEL BRUZZONE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Michael Bruzzone, acting in propria persona here and in the court below, appeals from a workplace violence restraining order entered against him pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 (hereafter “section 527.8”). On appeal, appellant contends that the “the damning 3 year restraining order should be struck down and expunged from the Santa Clara Superior Court and State record.” As set forth below, appellant has failed to present an intelligible legal argument supported by citation to facts in the appellate record, and we therefore will affirm. BACKGROUND On December 5, 2012, ARM, Inc. (hereafter “ARM”) filed a petition, pursuant to section 527.8, seeking a restraining order prohibiting appellant from engaging in the following conduct: harassing or intimidating five named ARM employees; engaging in violence or threats of violence against the named employees; following or stalking the

named employees; contacting the named employees; and coming within 300 yards of the named employees or their workplace. The petition alleged that appellant was terminated from employment at ARM, that appellant “expressed frustration and anger at having been ‘blacklisted’ at ARM,” that appellant had engaged in “erratic” behavior and exhibited signs of “paranoia” in recent weeks, and that appellant made a “credible threat of violence” against ARM employees. On January 15, 2013, appellant filed a “Declaration of Mike Bruzzone in Opposition to Restraining Order as a Constructed Fraud by Certain ARM Employees for Continuation as Employment Blacklisting Device Conciously [sic] in Parrallel [sic] with Intel Corp. Cartel Crime Ring Sub Group.” In the declaration, appellant asserted that he was “being framed in a continuing Intel inter corporate sub group network crime,” that “Intel has ARM in its sights,” and that a “continuous fandango” was occurring at ARM. The trial court held a hearing on the section 527.8 petition on January 15, 2013. One of the ARM employees named in the petition testified at the hearing. Appellant also testified at the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted ARM’s section 527.8 petition, and it ruled that the restraining order would issue for three years. The court issued a “Workplace Violence Restraining Order After Hearing” on January 15, 2013. The restraining order prohibited appellant from engaging in the following conduct: harassing the five named ARM employees; committing acts of violence or making threats of violence against the named employees; following or stalking the named employees; contacting the named employees by any means; taking action to obtain the named employees’ addresses; and coming within 300 yards of the named employees or their workplace. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. This appeal followed.1