Cueva v. Hudson CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 2020 No. B300658Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's issuance of a civil harassment restraining order, finding that the appellant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating error or providing an adequate record to support her claims. The court held that the appellant's threatening email alone provided sufficient evidence to support the trial court's ruling.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in issuing a civil harassment restraining order based on the evidence presented.
Whether the appellant demonstrated that the trial court improperly considered false evidence.
Whether the trial court exhibited judicial bias against the appellant during the proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find no error and affirm.”

“A credible threat of violence on one occasion is sufficient ground to issue a restraining order if it is reasonably probable that harassment may occur in the future absent an order.”

“The record does not support her claim.”

Filed 12/22/20 Cueva v. Hudson CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

MARTHA CUEVA, B300658

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STRO03931) v.

ILEANA ZAMFIR HUDSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gary D. Roberts, Judge. Affirmed. Ileana Zamfir Hudson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Ileana Hudson appeals from a civil harassment restraining order entered against her. We find no error and affirm.1 BACKGROUND The record on appeal includes only the reporter’s transcript from the hearing on respondent Martha Cueva’s petition for a civil harassment restraining order and the order that the trial court issued following that hearing. We summarize the facts available from the reporter’s transcript. 1. Hudson’s Threat Cueva is a teacher at the school that Hudson’s children attend. At the time of the hearing, Cueva had a romantic relationship with Hudson’s ex-husband (David). Cueva met David at the school. Hudson was initially upset about the relationship. She spoke to the school principal, demanding that Cueva be removed from the school and accused Cueva and David of inappropriate conduct at the school. After a few days Hudson gave “her blessing” to the relationship. Cueva established a friendly relationship with Hudson’s daughters. However, an incident later occurred that caused Hudson to become angry. David had moved out of state, but returned for one of the daughter’s school promotion day. Apparently Hudson believed that David was with Cueva and the daughter during that occasion. Hudson claimed that her daughter was upset.

Cueva v. Hudson CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

MARTHA CUEVA, B300658

ILEANA ZAMFIR HUDSON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHAVEZ, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.

AI Brief