Phillips v. Campbell CA2/6

Filed 6/21/16 Phillips v. Campbell CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

AMY LEE PHILLIPS, 2d Civil No. B263353 (Super. Ct. No. 15FL-0054) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

JAMES EUGENE CAMPBELL, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

James Eugene Campbell, Jr., appearing in propria persona, appeals from a five-year domestic violence restraining order prohibiting him from harassing or contacting Amy Lee Phillips, respondent, and compelling him to stay at least 500 yards away from her person, residence, and workplace. Appellant claims that the trial court (1) erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the case, (2) erroneously found that a dating relationship had existed between the parties, and (3) violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression. We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background In March 2013 a Tennessee court issued a protective order requiring appellant to stay away from and have no contact with respondent. The order expired in March 2014. In January 2015 in California, respondent applied for a domestic violence restraining order against appellant. Respondent, a professional cyclist, declared that she

had "met [appellant] 2 1/2 years ago through cycling." She had been friends with him for several months. Appellant "expressed an interest in moving forward in [the] relationship," but respondent "informed [him] that [she] was not interested in moving forward . . . , and [she] wanted to just be friends." Thereafter, appellant repeatedly harassed her by sending text messages to her, posting her personal information and photos of her on Facebook, posting videos of her on YouTube, and sending "private messages to individuals sharing personal information about [her]." In text messages to respondent, appellant called her a "psycho evil witch" and "a compulsive liar" who had "lied" about him and "destroyed [his] life." The matter was set for a hearing on February 19, 2015. On that date, respondent's counsel appeared in court. Respondent was "on a bicycle Tour in New Zealand." Appellant, who lived in Florida, appeared in propria persona via the telephone ("court call"). At the beginning of the hearing, appellant told the court: "[M]y understanding is the [respondent] has chosen to be out of the country, knowing that the court date was today. I would ask that the court dismiss the case." The court did not rule on the motion. It put the matter over until 3:15 p.m. At that time, the court said, "This case . . . is going to take a lot longer. It looks like we may have to put you guys over." The court continued the hearing to February 26, 2015. Appellant did not object. On February 26, 2015, appellant again appeared in propria persona via the telephone. Respondent was personally present with her counsel. After extensive argument, the trial court found that "there was a relationship [between the parties] that qualifies as a dating relationship and that the communications and interaction from [appellant] to [respondent] qualifies for a domestic violence restraining order protecting [respondent]." Motion to Dismiss Appellant contends that, at the hearing on February 19, 2015, the trial court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss. But the court did not deny the motion. It never ruled on the motion, and appellant did not press for a ruling. He did not object to