N.R. v. Shapouri CA4/1

Filed 7/19/21 N.R. v. Shapouri 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

N.R., D076017

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019-00006399-CU-HR-CTL) FERNANDO SHAPOURI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew Brower, Judge. Affirmed. Fernando Shapouri, in pro. per.; Law Office of Corey Evan Parker and Corey Evan Parker, for Defendant and Appellant. N.R., in pro. per.; Bernal Law and Pedro Bernal for Plaintiff and Respondent. Fernando Shapouri, who is self-represented, appeals from the court’s order granting respondent N.R.’s request for a civil harassment restraining order (Code of Civ. Proc.,1 § 527.6) protecting herself and her mother against

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

him. Shapouri’s brief does not contain clearly stated arguments for reversal supported by citations to legal authority and the record. This court has nevertheless discerned from his brief the following contentions: (1) insufficient evidence supported the granting of the restraining order; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to resolve this matter as Shapouri lives in Los Angeles, N.R.’s telephone number had a Palo Alto area code, and no evidence showed she was in San Diego during any of the alleged telephone contacts; (3) the judge did not fully disclose a conflict of interest arising from his acquaintance with Shapouri’s prior counsel, therefore “the evidence amalgamates frame up, conspiracy by obstruction of justice, violations of liberty and due process, all the while contributing to tyrannical malicious prosecution and inconsistent verdict”; and (4) the court further violated Shapouri’s constitutional right to due process because N.R.’s mother was not present at the motion hearing. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND N.R. made the following allegations in a petition for a civil harassment restraining order: Shapouri was a high school acquaintance, and they never had a romantic or sexual relationship. On November 2, 2018, Shapouri left her a voicemail in which he was “talking about ‘ejaculating in a copy machine at work’ and making other inappropriate sexual remarks.” On December 2, 2018, Shapouri telephoned N.R.’s business partner and left a voicemail message stating, “[N.R.] is screwing up and she needs to come after [me] instead of making another mistake in her life . . . then [me and N.R.] can argue and make out like in Top Gun.” Around December 17, 2018, Shapouri disparaged N.R. and her business via her friends’ social media.