Myers v. Dorsaneo CA1/1
Filed 10/18/21 Myers v. Dorsaneo CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
CAROL MYERS, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161586 v. ALEXANDRIA DORSANEO, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. CIV2001048)
Appellant Alexandria Dorsaneo appeals from an order denying statutory attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. Dorsaneo claims she is entitled to fees because Myers, who obtained a temporary civil restraining order against her, voluntarily dismissed the case at the outset of the hearing on a full restraining order. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees and affirm. BACKGROUND1 In her civil harassment petition and papers in opposition to Dorsaneo’s fee motion, Myers recounted the following scenario: Dorsaneo rented a room in her home in mid-February 2020, as the Covid-19 pandemic was accelerating. In mid-April, Dorsaneo told Myers she
We derive the background largely from the papers Myers submitted 1
in opposition to Dorsaneo’s fee motion. We realize none of Myers’s proffered
1
did not feel well, and Myers, who was then 65 years old, asked Dorsaneo to quarantine in her room, take her temperature, and check with her doctor about whether she should be tested for Covid. Dorsaneo “angrily refused.” Myers then called her own doctor, who told her Dorsaneo “ ‘absolutely needs to stay in her room and quarantine until she could be Covid tested.’ ” Myers and Dorsaneo communicated by text and phone. Dorsaneo soon reported she felt much better and believed she had eaten something that disagreed with her. Myers nevertheless continued to ask Dorsaneo to remain quarantined in her room until she spoke with her own doctor. Dorsaneo refused and hung up. Later that day, Dorsaneo came out of her room and the two began arguing, Dorsaneo repeatedly stating she felt fine and was not going to be tested. Myers felt threatened and started recording Dorsaneo on her cell phone. The verbal exchange escalated, and Dorsaneo chased Myers into the garage, tried to grab the phone, and, in the course of doing so, “twisted two of [Myers’s] fingers, severely bruising and fracturing” one of them. Myers sought and received medical treatment. Myers then left her house for eight days, returning for only brief periods of time. She also retained an attorney to start eviction proceedings and to seek a temporary restraining order. Dorsaneo then wrote a letter to Myers stating she had not intended to injure her but was trying to stop the video recording so the two could discuss the situation. Thereafter, Dorsaneo
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)