Rodriguez v. Piercy CA2/7

Filed 12/21/15 Rodriguez v. Piercy CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ, B257941

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GS015518) v.

DAVID PIERCY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary Thornton House, Judge. Affirmed. David N. Piercy, In Pro. Per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________________

INTRODUCTION

David Piercy filed a Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.161 motion to strike Santiago Rodriguez’s petition for a restraining order. The trial court granted the restraining order but failed to rule on Piercy’s motion. We conclude that any error in failing to rule on the section 425.16 motion was harmless because the court’s grant of the restraining order demonstrates that Piercy’s motion would have been denied. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Piercy and Rodriguez vehemently disagree concerning the events surrounding the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. Starting as early as September 2013, Piercy and Rodriguez used social media to argue about the trial, and to personally attack each other. On May 2, 2014, Piercy filed a petition for a civil harassment restraining order against Rodriguez in the Fresno County Superior Court. The court granted a temporary restraining order against Rodriguez on May 5, 2014, but on June 2, 2014, denied Piercy’s request for a permanent restraining order. On June 13, 2014, Rodriguez filed a petition for a restraining order against Piercy pursuant to section 527.6 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. In the petition, Rodriguez accused Piercy of stalking and harassing him and his wife and posting their personal information online. Rodriguez also stated that Piercy had threatened him with violence. In his reply declaration, Rodriguez elaborated on the alleged harassment, stating that Piercy had assaulted him and his wife, stolen his identity, threatened him with jail time, and suggested he was tracking Rodriguez’s location with an online program. Rodriguez stated that he and his wife felt intimidated by Piercy’s actions and were fearful that if the court did not issue a restraining order Piercy would increase the level of harassment.