Tesoro Logistics GP v. Elder CA4/3
Filed 12/21/20 Tesoro Logistics GP v. Elder 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
TESORO LOGISTICS GP, LLC,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G058110
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01067372)
THOMAS G. ELDER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Corey S. Cramin, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas G. Elder, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Seyfarth Shaw, William Dritsas, Kiran A. Seldon, and Fontaine Yuk for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *
Tesoro Logistics (“Tesoro”) sought a restraining order against Thomas Elder on behalf of two of its employees. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court 1 issued a permanent restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 prohibiting Elder from initiating any contact with the employees. Elder appeals, arguing there was insufficient evidence to warrant issuance of the restraining order as to either employee. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY After granting Tesoro’s ex parte request for a temporary restraining order, the court held an evidentiary hearing regarding Tesoro’s request for a permanent restraining order against Elder. The following evidence was introduced at that hearing. Tesoro is a fuel transportation company which had a contract with Elder. In August 2018, Tesoro investigated an incident in which a sex toy was discovered in the trailer of one of its employees. Miranda S. (M.S.), an employee in Tesoro’s human resources department, telephoned Elder to discuss the incident. During the phone call, Elder “became extremely agitated and uncontrollably upset.” He screamed at M.S. so loudly that people working on the floor below her could hear him. Over the next two months Elder repeatedly contacted M.S. and demanded information about the investigation. M.S. eventually asked him to stop contacting her, but he continued until she “blocked his calls and texts.” In December 2018, Tesoro terminated its contract with Elder. The following month, Elder called Tesoro and asked to speak to a manager. Daniel B. (D.B.) was the manager on duty who spoke to Elder. Elder requested that his contract be reinstated. When D.B. said he did not have authority to assist with this request, Elder became “immediately hostile and started cursing”; D.B. hung up. Elder called back and left two voice messages which were “extremely hostile, aggressive and threatening.” In
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)