De Elias v. Clark CA2/2

Filed 7/18/16 De Elias v. Clark CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

LILIANA ESPERANZA CARBAJAL DE B262496 ELIAS, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. YQ022071)

v.

LUCIUS CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Glenda Veasey, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Lucius Clark, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Lucius Clark (appellant) appeals from an order granting Liliana Esperanza Carbajal de Elias’s (respondent) request for a restraining order against appellant. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 10, 2014, respondent filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against appellant. Respondent indicated that she and appellant were living together and in her attached declaration she stated that appellant assaulted her. When respondent told appellant she was going to call 911, appellant threatened her with a knife. Respondent had to wait until appellant fell asleep before she was able to leave the residence. She was unaware that appellant was following her. Respondent sought help in a store and the police were summoned. Respondent stayed in a domestic violence shelter for approximately two weeks following the incident. On December 22, 2014, appellant filed a response to respondent’s request for restraining order in which he indicated that he did not agree to the requested order. Appellant stated he did not conduct himself in a way that would require a restraining order. Appellant shared his belief that respondent reconciled with her previous husband and that was why she was moving out. Although appellant admitted that police were called to his residence on November 29, 2014, he claimed they never interviewed him. Appellant said he never threatened respondent with a knife at any time, and that respondent later came to his home with a friend to pick up her belongings. A hearing on respondent’s request for retraining order was held on January 22, 2015. The court questioned both parties. Respondent testified that the information provided in her declaration was true and correct. Appellant explained to the court that on the day the police came to his apartment, the police did not question him. Appellant stated he was outside sitting in his car, and the police never made any statements to him. The court asked appellant if he drove off, and he stated that he did, at a later time. The court viewed a video of appellant’s behavior towards respondent. Appellant protested that it was not him in the video. Appellant pointed out that respondent had twice returned to his home to get her property, “so she wasn’t afraid.”