Lord v. Mancino CA1/3

Filed 10/27/21 Lord v. Mancino CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

EDWIN FREDERICK LORD, Plaintiff and Respondent, A161323 v. HARMONY RENE MANCINO, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CCH-20-582872) Defendant and Appellant.

Harmony Rene Mancino appeals after the trial court granted Edwin Frederick Lord a civil harassment restraining order against her. We conclude the evidence does not support a finding that there is a likelihood of future harassment. We therefore reverse the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mancino and Lord are housemates in a two-story house in San Francisco. On the lower floor, Lord occupies one bedroom and a resident named Tom (who acts as property manager) occupies another, and there is a small living room. Upstairs are bedrooms occupied by Mancino and Mark Chan, as well as a living room. It appears that in June 2020, Mancino obtained a temporary restraining order against Tom, based on him coming upstairs to sleep in the bedroom next to hers rather than in his own room, and that the temporary order was dissolved when the trial court denied her

request for a permanent order a week or two before the August 14, 2020 hearing at issue in this case. Lord filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order on June 18, 2020. He alleged Mancino had begun engaging in a pattern of harassment in May 2020, when she put sand into the kitchen and bathroom pipes, requiring a repairman to come to the house on June 6 and 7, and that she did not keep the kitchen and bathroom clean, leading to an increase in ants. Lord also described two incidents in which Mancino tried to enter his room without permission. On June 7, 2020 she “snoop[ed] by sticking her head in [Lord’s] room taking notes, sticking her head in Tom’s room when he is not there taking notes and leaving without saying anything to [Lord].” On June 9, 2020, Mancino looked into the windows of the downstairs bedrooms, saw that Lord’s bedroom door was open, and slowly came through the door. Lord yelled “Hold on” at her because he had sensitive files on his computer. Mancino “flinched” and went back outside the room, then told Lord she was looking for Tom. About an hour later, a woman knocked and asked for Tom, then left when Lord told her Tom was not there. As a result of Mancino’s behavior, Lord alleged, he experienced anxiety, nausea, and feelings of paranoia when Mancino was within 15 feet of him. In her response to the request, Mancino averred that in early June she knocked on Lord’s door and they spoke briefly. On one occasion, she looked in Tom’s bedroom window to see how much furniture the room contained because Tom had been sleeping next to her bedroom upstairs. The main reason she approached the downstairs area in early June was to serve Tom with a temporary restraining order. She denied clogging the pipes, she said the ants were a longstanding problem predating her tenancy, and she said