Butler v. Fanara CA4/1

Filed 10/29/20 Butler v. Fanara CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CECILIA BUTLER, D075222

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18FDV04827S)

BRETT FANARA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann Kotler, Judge. Affirmed.

Brett Fanara, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Brett Fanara challenges the trial court’s order granting plaintiff Cecilia Butler a five-year restraining order against him. We affirm the order, as explained below.

BACKGROUND On October 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a request for a restraining order against defendant, whom she described as her ex-boyfriend. The court held a hearing on November 29, 2018, with both parties present. Neither plaintiff nor defendant requested that a reporter be present, so there is no reporter’s transcript of what occurred. The court granted plaintiff a restraining order, effective for five years. The court ordered defendant to relinquish his firearms. He did so on December 7, 2018. Defendant has timely appealed,

representing himself. Plaintiff did not respond to the opening brief.1 Defendant submitted a proposed settled statement to the court. The court found it improper and provided a statement of what happened at the hearing: “The [defendant’s] proposed witnesses were excluded from the courtroom during testimony. After [defendant] made an offer of proof regarding his witnesses, the court ruled the proposed testimony of the witnesses was not relevant. None of the proposed witnesses were percipient witnesses or alibi witnesses.