Disieno v. Nohr CA2/6
Filed 3/29/22 Disieno v. Nohr 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
JULIA DISIENO, 2d Civ. No. B311576 (Super. Ct. No. 20CV02397) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
MARY NOHR et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appellant Julia DiSieno operated a non-profit animal rescue facility out of her backyard in Solvang. A series of heated confrontations with neighbors over the facility resulted in the District Attorney filing criminal charges against DiSieno for stalking, criminal threats, and assault and battery. A jury acquitted her of the charges. This matter arises from DiSieno’s subsequent civil action against neighbors Mary Nohr, Richard Nohr, and Jay Bardessono for malicious prosecution and other claims based on allegations they provided false information to law enforcement about DiSieno’s behavior.
DiSieno appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her malicious prosecution cause of action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”). (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.)1 We disagree in part with the court’s analysis but reach the same result. The order is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND DiSieno and the Nohrs live next to each other in a semi- rural neighborhood east of Solvang, California. DiSieno began operating a licensed rescue facility on her property in 2009 that housed wild animals such as coyotes, bobcats, foxes, and owls, as well as domestic cats and dogs. The relationship between the neighbors was tense from the start. DiSieno came to believe the Nohrs were trying to close the facility by falsely reporting zoning violations and “petty . . . activities and conditions on [her] property” like barking dogs. The Nohrs felt they could no longer spend time in their garden or entertain outside because of the noise and odor from DiSieno’s yard. The dispute escalated in March of 2017 when DiSieno yelled profanities at the Nohrs as they checked their mailbox. In the following months, the Nohrs heard what they believed to be rocks hitting their house coming from the direction of DiSieno’s property followed by yelling and banging on the boundary fence. The Nohrs installed a security camera in the side yard that captured DiSieno throwing rocks against the boundary fence and making lengthy, profanity-laced tirades in which she baited the Nohrs about the noise and their complaints to police. The Nohrs sent police a recording in which they allegedly heard her say “you’re going down” and then make machine gun noises. DiSieno
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)