Wax v. Mayfield CA1/5

Filed 4/28/15 Wax v. Mayfield CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

NINA WAX,

Plaintiff and Appellant, A142531

v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. JENNIFER LEE ANN COLLINS MAYFIELD, RG14723395)

Defendant and Respondent. __________________________________________/

The trial court issued an injunction protecting Jennifer Lee Ann Collins Mayfield and her husband from Nina Wax (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6).1 Wax appeals in propria persona. She contends the court erroneously interpreted section 527.6, and insufficient evidence supports the injunction. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND “We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment.” (Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405 (Brekke).) Mayfield and her husband live in Oakland. They have two dogs. Wax and her partner, Michael Hardesty, live three houses away from Mayfield and her husband. In April 2014, Mayfield requested an injunction requiring Wax to stay 50 yards away from her and her husband. In her request (Form CH-100), Mayfield stated she and her 1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 1

husband “have been harassed” by Wax and Hardesty “via letters, phone calls, [and] complaints” to the Oakland Police Department (Police Department) and Oakland Department of Animal Control (Animal Control), “as well as fliers being passed around our neighborhood slandering us and our pets as well as giving out our personal information without our consent.” Mayfield alleged the harassment was “ongoing since Aug[ust] 2012” and that Wax intimidated her and displayed a “threatening manner” toward her. The injunction request attached: (1) notices Mayfield received from the Police Department and Animal Control reflecting complaints made about Mayfield’s dogs in 2012 and 2013; (2) a flyer encouraging neighbors to report excessive barking from Mayfield’s dogs and that the “fence keeping them” from nearby children “is flimsy[;]” (3) a description of Wax’s constant complaints about Mayfield’s dogs and her behavior toward Mayfield and her husband, and other neighbors; (4) a petition signed by 25 neighbors stating Mayfield’s dogs “are NOT a public nuisance to the neighborhood[;]” (5) a declaration from one neighbor averring the “barking has stopped” and “the problem has been addressed and solved[;]” and (6) a declaration from the manager of a neighboring apartment building stating Wax gave him a flyer about Mayfield’s dogs, averring his tenants had “no formal complaint” about the barking, and opining the dogs’ “presence may have reduced any unwanted activities” near his apartment building. Mayfield also submitted pictures of her backyard fence and the dogs’ outdoor kennel. In her written opposition, Wax denied harassing Mayfield and her husband and explained, “[c]omplaining about barking dogs is not harassment. A neighbor has the right to complain to a city agency about disruption of their [sic] right to peace and quiet in and around their [sic] residence and to take action for redressing this nuisance.” Wax claimed the flyers accurately described how the dogs barked excessively and jumped against Mayfield’s fence. Wax also claimed many of the neighbors who signed the petition “do not live near [Mayfield], thus they were not probably able to hear her barking dogs.”