Piercy v. Rodriguez CA5

Filed 6/26/15 Piercy v. Rodriguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DAVID N. PIERCY, F069752 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 14CECG01235) v.

SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Carlos Cabrera, Judge. David N. Piercy, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Upon appellant’s application, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent from harassing appellant under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. However, following a hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s request for an injunction against respondent. Appellant contends the trial court erred on numerous grounds. According to appellant, respondent’s conduct falls within the scope of Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, the court improperly excluded certain evidence, the court erred in denying appellant’s requests for a continuance of the hearing, the court erred in failing to provide a court reporter for the hearing, and the court should have granted his motion to disqualify respondent’s attorney. Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Accordingly, the order will be affirmed. BACKGROUND Appellant filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order seeking protection from respondent. Appellant also asked for protection for his wife and his stepdaughter. According to appellant, respondent made threatening and harassing telephone calls, left unwelcome messages on Facebook and twitter, and posted harassing videos on the internet. On May 5, 2014, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order to remain in effect until the injunction hearing scheduled for June 2, 2014. Appellant filed two requests to continue the June 2 hearing on the ground that he had not yet been able to serve respondent with the order because respondent lives in Los Angeles County. The trial court denied the first request, filed May 13, because appellant still had time to serve the documents on respondent. The trial court denied the second request, filed May 27, because respondent had contacted the court and stated that he would be present.