Vega v. Tsuboi CA1/2

Filed 8/16/16 Vega v. Tsuboi CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DAVID ROGER VEGA, Plaintiff and Appellant, A146397 v. KARA MIEKO TSUBOI, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. FPT-15-376918) Defendant and Respondent.

On June 4, 2015, representing himself, appellant David Roger Vega filed a petition to establish parentage. The petition named as respondent Kara Tsuboi, and sought “visitation” and “child custody” of “kid Vega,” born “9-4-2013,” a “1 yr, 9 mo” old male. The petition was signed under penalty of perjury. Vega attached to his petition various declarations, one of which had 32 exhibits (A–M 20), exhibits that totaled 170 pages. Hearing on Vega's petition was set for July 6. On June 9, Vega filed an application for a reissuance, the effect of which was to cause the hearing to be continued to August 3. On July 27, Tsuboi filed a response to the petition, accompanied by her declaration. That declaration stated in a handwritten entry by Tsuboi that “the petitioner is not the father. The father is my husband and the father of the child who was conceived during marriage.” Further, as “Supporting Information,” Tsuboi declared that “Vega has been stalking me since 2010. I have had multiple restraining orders against him. There

1

has never been any contact, intimate or physical, with him and no chance he is the father.” Prior to the hearing, Tsuboi’s counsel filed what she called a “Request for Judicial Review of Pleadings” and “Request for Dismissal of Entire Cause of Action.” The request had a two and one-half page basis for the “requested relief,” which we quote in its entirety: “Petitioner is attempting to establish parentage of a child he refers to as KID VEGA, born September 4, 2013. There is no “Kid Vega”—no such child exist[s]. “Respondent did not give birth to any child on September 4, 2013, as alleged by Petitioner. Indeed, it would be biologically impossible for Respondent having given birth to her son Everett on July 25, 2013. “Respondent never had a relationship of any kind with Petitioner. Respondent ‘met’ Petitioner through her employment with the Oakland A’s when she briefly interviewed him as a fan at a game in 2010. Since then, Respondent has been stalked and harassed by Petitioner. “Indeed, by and through Petitioner’s own Petition to Establish Parental Relationship, filed June 4, 2015, Petitioner has ‘not been in close personal contact with [Respondent]’ since 2010. [Citation.] Instead, Petitioner claims that, by way of an elaborate plan, and, a continuing hoax, Respondent stole his semen from a trash can inside of his home and inseminated herself, resulting in the alleged birth. There are no facts or evidence offered by Petitioner to support his allegations, other than his own statements. Petitioner has provided no facts to substantiate the existence of this alleged child, Kid Vega, other than to provide a photo of a Respondent’s son, Everett, claiming it to be Kid Vega. “This case has a more complex history than the present petition, and one that the Unified Family Court should take into consideration prior to the Readiness Calendar, as Petitioner has a long history of stalking and harassing, stemming back to 2010,which has resulted in criminal and civil restraining orders, as well as Petitioner’s involuntary