Cabral v. Mendez CA4/3

Filed 9/28/20 Cabral v. Mendez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DAISY CABRAL,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058306

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01074888)

FABIOLA MENDEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Flannery, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Thakur Law Firm, Pamela Tahim Thakur for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Plaintiff Daisy Cabral appeals from the trial court’s denial of her petition for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant Fabiola Mendez under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 (all further statutory references are to this code). We conclude plaintiff failed to show a sufficient threat of future harassment and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY After granting plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order, the court held an evidentiary hearing on her petition for a permanent restraining order (also known as an injunction) against defendant. The following evidence was introduced. Plaintiff owns a natural supplements company in Los Angeles and has an ongoing business dispute with M.R. Defendant is friends with M.R., and first met plaintiff in 2015. A friend of plaintiff sent her screenshots of Instagram messages made by defendant on June 5, 2019. The messages sent to plaintiff’s friend mentioned both plaintiff and her boyfriend by name. In one message, defendant wrote “do not forget that you work in a store where many people come and go. So you better be careful, and do not let happen what happened to the rapper they killed outside his business for being an asshole just like you.” Plaintiff understood this to be a reference to Nipsey Hussle, a rapper who had recently been shot in front of a store he owned. Defendant testified this message was directed towards plaintiff’s boyfriend because he had posted pictures of defendant’s son and her home address on his Instagram account. In a different message, defendant wrote plaintiff and her boyfriend were “born monkeys and monkeys you will die.” Defendant explained this message was “like a saying that we have in Spanish. It’s like you’re born poor, you’re going to die poor.” Defendant said she intended the message as a threat to plaintiff and her boyfriend.