Mora v. Romo CA5

Filed 10/5/21 Mora v. Romo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JACKLYN MORA, F080576 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BCV-19-103231) v.

MIGUEL ROMO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Linda S. Etienne, Commissioner. Law Offices of Roger Lampkin and Roger Lampkin for Defendant and Appellant. Borton Petrini and Michael J. Stump for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant Miguel Romo appeals from the Superior Court of Kern County’s December 11, 2019 issuance of a restraining order against him pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure,1 section 527.6 upon the petition of respondent Jacklyn Mora. Romo urges us to construe Mora’s petition as a motion for reconsideration under section 1008 and

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J. 1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

alleges that the trial court inappropriately considered Mora’s ex parte communication. We find that Romo fails to meet his burden to show reversible error. We affirm. FACTS Romo was once Mora’s manager at a company. Romo’s alleged inappropriate and threatening behavior toward Mora and her family resulted in Mora filing a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Order against Romo on July 22, 2019.2 Mora’s petition details Romo’s harassing behavior toward Mora, over the course of six months, on social media, through text messaging, in person, and in numerous phone calls. On November 7, the parties entered a “no contact” agreement, which allegedly required Romo to remain 100 yards from Mora, her family, her home, and her vehicles and to refrain from contacting Mora until July 20, 2020. However, in its minute order, the trial court noted that the agreement was not entered into evidence. Sometime following November 7, Romo allegedly left a harassing note on a truck owned by Mora’s husband parked outside her children’s school, which Mora took as a violation of the “no contact” agreement. She then filed another Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Order on November 15. On December 5, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition, reviewed evidence, and heard from witnesses. Romo did not provide a reporter’s transcript or equivalent on appeal. Consequently, we are unable to fully determine what occurred at the hearing. The trial court found in Mora’s favor, issuing the restraining order from which Romo now appeals. Our only indication of the trial court’s findings is its detailed December 6 minute order. After sifting through the evidence, the trial court determined that evidence of calls made on November 8 and Mora’s claims that she observed Romo’s vehicle on November 21 and 22 and the following week constituted clear and convincing evidence sufficient to establish stalking.