Castaneda v. Ramirez CA1/1

Filed 8/24/16 Castaneda v. Ramirez CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

EDITH CASTANEDA, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143653 v. RYAN RAMIREZ, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSD1401238) Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiff Ryan Ramirez appeals from a three-year domestic violence restraining order that his mother-in-law, Edith Castaneda, obtained against him after Ramirez unsuccessfully sought a restraining order against her.1 Ramirez, in his application for a restraining order, alleged he was seeking a divorce from his wife (Castaneda’s daughter) and Castaneda had twice threatened him with death if he did anything that would “hurt” his wife or her family members. Ramirez claimed that in preparing for the divorce proceedings he had discovered “possible frauds,” involving the purchase of a residential property, perpetrated by his wife and Castaneda. He sought and was granted a temporary restraining order. Ramirez was unable to serve Castaneda, and the matter was eventually dropped from the calendar. A month later, Castaneda sought a restraining order. She claimed Ramirez was “stalking” her, had waived a gun at her, and had accused her of committing and fraud and stealing from a client.

1 This appeal is properly decided by way of memorandum opinion in accordance with California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1(1), (3). 1

Ramirez filed written opposition, denying Castaneda’s accusations and claiming she was stealing from her husband and giving his earnings to a “lover” for the purchase of a “million dollar” home. He asserted Castaneda was harassing him and trying to prevent him from divulging information about the alleged fraud to her husband. Ramirez attached a number of e-mails and letters that reflected a serious conflict with his wife and mother-in-law and in which he accused them of stealing his and his father-in-law’s money and threatening him in order to dissuade him from serving subpoenas for financial records he believed would substantiate the alleged marital and economic transgressions. A hearing was held on September 25, 2014, at which Castaneda and Ramirez appeared in propria persona and testified. After considering all the documentation the parties had submitted and their testimony, the court ruled in favor of Castaneda and issued a three-year restraining order in favor of both Castaneda and her husband against Ramirez. Ramirez filed a notice of appeal on November 24, 2014. As the record on appeal he designated a clerk’s transcript under California Rule of Court, rule 8.122 and a settled statement under rule 8.137. The court provided a settled statement on August 31, 2015. In the settled statement, the court recounted Castaneda’s testimony. She testified she and her husband had received numerous communications from Ramirez accusing her of an affair and stealing money to support her purported lover, and Ramirez had repeatedly call her employer and made false accusations in an attempt to get her fired. She also claimed to have found a surveillance camera near her residence and one of the photos downloaded from the chip was of Ramirez. Castaneda said she feared for her life, Ramirez was showing signs of “mental instability,” and he was obsessed with the notion she had committed marital fraud and had a lover—which she denied. The court also recounted Ramirez’s testimony. Ramirez maintained Castaneda had, indeed, committed marital fraud and had a lover who resided in a house and lived a lifestyle he could not possibly afford. He said his many communications were intended for Castaneda’s husband’s benefit and denied placing the camera. He also denied waving a gun around,