Escovedo v. Robitschek CA5

Filed 10/8/14 Escovedo v. Robitschek CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CODY ESCOVEDO, F068219 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12CEFL06070) v.

LAURA ROBITSCHEK, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. D. Tyler Tharpe, Judge. Laura Robitschek, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Cody Escovedo, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

Respondent Cody Escovedo obtained a restraining order against his mother, appellant Laura Robitschek, pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.).1 Appellant appeals. We affirm. DISCUSSION We review the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order for abuse of discretion. (Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413, 420.) A court abuses its discretion when it exceeds the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences may be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court. (Ibid.) When reviewing the trial court’s factual findings, we apply a substantial evidence test of review. (Loeffler v. Medina (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1505.) We are bound by the familiar principle that the power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support the findings below. (Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1100.) We must therefore view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in its favor. (Bickel v. City of Piedmont (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1040, 1053.) Accordingly, under the abuse of discretion standard, we ask whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was not arbitrary or capricious. (People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 737, 746 (Humberto S.).) Respondent sought and obtained a domestic violence restraining order against appellant due to multiple complaints of harassing phone calls, emails and contacts with respondent and his family members. When that restraining order expired, he then filed a request for an additional restraining order, which is the subject of this appeal. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the request for a further restraining order in favor of respondent and his family members against appellant. The order required appellant to