Gomez v. Foster CA2/6

Filed 2/23/22 Gomez v. Foster CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

LUIS ERNESTO GOMEZ, 2d Civil No. B310368 (Super. Ct. No. 20CV02338) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

JOSEPH FOSTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Joseph Foster appeals a civil harassment restraining order prohibiting him from harassing his neighbor, Luis Gomez (respondent) and respondent’s family. (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6.)1 Appellant contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

1 All further references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant and respondent are neighbors. Each neighbor obtained a temporary civil harassment restraining order against the other. On December 8, 2020, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the parties’ requests. Appellant moved to dismiss his request for a restraining order. The trial court granted the request and the hearing proceeded solely on respondent’s request for a restraining order. Respondent testified that on July 13, 2020, he asked appellant about the temporary construction fencing around his front yard that had been up for approximately four months. In response, appellant threatened respondent that he was going to “terrorize [respondent’s family] and be the neighbor from hell.” The following day, sometime around 7:00 a.m., appellant began playing loud music and revving his motorcycle engine for approximately one hour. On another occasion, he approached respondent and respondent’s father-in-law and shouted insults and threats at them. He called animal control and complained about respondent’s dog. He also installed security cameras pointed toward respondent’s home. Appellant denied respondent’s allegations in both his declaration and his testimony at the hearing. He claimed it was respondent who was the aggressor. Appellant said he installed the cameras for his safety because respondent had threatened to poison his dog. He denied the cameras were pointed at respondent’s house, but later took them down. He also claimed respondent’s dog barked for hours, was off leash and defecated in his front yard on multiple occasions.