Piercy v. Rodriguez CA5

Filed 1/27/16 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070535 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 14CECG02704) v.

SANTIAGO RODRIGUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Carlos A. Cabrera, Judge. David N. Piercy, in propria persona, for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- In May 2014, David N. Piercy (Piercy) applied for a civil harassment restraining order against Santiago Rodriguez (Rodriguez) under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.1 The trial court issued a temporary restraining order but subsequently denied the injunction after a hearing. Piercy appealed that decision to this court. Several months

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

later, Piercy filed a second request for a civil harassment restraining order against Rodriguez. The same judge who heard the first case denied his request for a temporary restraining order and petition for order to show cause after finding the petition stated the same case as the first, on which the appeal was pending. On appeal from that order, Piercy contends the trial court erred in finding that the two cases are the same. He also contends that Rodriguez “abused” a restraining order that he obtained against Piercy in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Because Piercy has failed to demonstrate reversible error, we affirm the order.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Piercy and Rodriguez, who vehemently disagree over the events surrounding the Trayvon Martin case in Florida, used social media to argue about the trial and personally attack each other. In May 2014, Piercy filed a petition for a civil harassment restraining order against Rodriguez pursuant to section 527.6 in Fresno County Superior Court case number 14CECG01235. On May 5, 2014,3 the trial court granted a temporary restraining order against Rodriguez, which was to remain in effect until the injunction hearing scheduled for June 2. Following the June 2 hearing, which was held before the Honorable Carlos Cabrera, Judge Cabrera denied Piercy’s request for an injunction. On June 13, Rodriguez filed a petition for a restraining order against Piercy in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On July 24, following a hearing on the petition, the trial court granted Rodriguez’s request for an injunction.