Carle v. Gardos CA1/1

Filed 9/11/14 Carle v. Gardos CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

LISA CARLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138979

v. (San Francisco County PETER GARDOS, Super. Ct. No. FDV12809921) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Peter Gardos appeals after the trial court issued a three-year restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.)1 The restraining order contained personal conduct and stay-away orders protecting plaintiff Lisa Carle. Defendant contends the court abused its discretion in issuing the restraining order because it improperly excluded relevant evidence that would have impeached plaintiff’s credibility. We will affirm the order. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 The parties were in a dating relationship for several years. They met around 20073 and moved in together in 2008. Defendant broke up with plaintiff in 2010 but they continued to see each other until they separated for good in July 2011. A few days after

1 All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Our factual summary is based on the evidence introduced at the restraining order hearing. 3 According to defendant, the couple actually met in 2008 at a “training workshop in a specialized form of somatic sex coaching.” 1

their breakup, he informed plaintiff that he had incriminating photos of her on his computer documenting that she had assaulted him several times. He claimed he had a “packet of evidence” against her and would take it to the police unless she obtained psychological help. Defendant’s conduct reportedly escalated in 2012. He allegedly coerced plaintiff into having sex with him on several occasions, stating that if she refused he would “turn [her] in.” He also convinced her that she had a brain disorder and that she was the victim of cybercrime perpetrated by Ukrainian gang members. In June 2012, he threatened her with a lit cigarette and a knife, accusing her of conspiring with the Ukrainian hackers to access his computer in order to take his money and destroy his business. In August 2012, he sent plaintiff several long e-mail messages. On August 27, 2012, plaintiff wrote a letter to defendant asking him stop contacting her. She gave the letter to his doorman and asked him to give it to defendant. On October 6, 2012, plaintiff had an attorney send defendant a cease and desist letter. In spite of her requests for no contact, defendant persisted in sending her e-mail messages and text messages. He also called her telephone and left several voicemail messages. He repeatedly threatened to turn incriminating information about her over to the authorities, and at one point claimed she had tried to poison him. This pattern of behavior continued into December 2012. On December 24, 2012, plaintiff filed for a domestic violence restraining order against defendant. Her request included a lengthy declaration and extensive documentary evidence of his allegedly harassing phone calls, text messages, and e-mail messages. That same day, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order. On February 25, 2013, defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s request accompanied by his own declaration, which included copies of e-mail messages, text messages, and documents purportedly pertaining to plaintiff’s medical and psychiatric