Melnikov v. Harrington CA1/4

Filed 8/1/22 Melnikov v. Harrington CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

NOLEEN MELNIKOV, Plaintiff and Appellant, A163557 v. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. TIMOTHY HARRINGTON, No. CCH21583672) Defendant and Respondent.

Noleen Melnikov appeals the denial of her petition for a civil harassment restraining order against her former professor Timothy Harrington. Melnikov’s petition alleges a multi-year cyberstalking campaign against her by Harrington. Omitted from these allegations, however, was the fact that a still-current restraining order had been issued against Melnikov for harassing Harrington. Upon discovering this omission, the trial court denied relief, finding that Melnikov deliberately misled the court and lacked credibility. We will affirm. The trial court acted well within its discretion in rejecting her petition for lack of credibility.

1

I. BACKGROUND The only undisputed fact in this matter appears to be that Harrington was Melnikov’s graphic design professor for several courses at San Francisco Community College (the College). A. Melnikov’s Petition Melnikov’s version of the events begins in March 2018. She alleges in her Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (the petition) that she then discovered “unusual activity on [her] Facebook account,” “Gmail account,” and “Facebook Messenger [account].” This unusual activity soon “bec[ame] so routine” that “[her] husband” noticed it as well. She hired a “professional to perform a forensic investigation to check [her] accounts for hacking.” The result of the investigation, according to the petition, was discovery of “IP addresses [associated with] the home address of Respondent in San Francisco.” Then, “[i]n August 2019 his conduct evolved when [Harrington] began to manipulate [her] work and school files.” Melnikov confesses she “ha[d] no idea why he chose [her] to attack and follow when [their] relationship was strictly professor and student.” “In fact,” the petition further alleges, “[Harrington] was a good professor.” She spent thousands of dollars on the forensic expert, and felt “threatened, abused and harassed” by this conduct. The closest Melnikov comes to disclosing the restraining order currently in force against her is the following. She discloses that she suffered “damage[] [to her] reputation at school,” “when [Harrington] filed his restraining order which stated [she] was copying him online.” But, the petition alleges, “[she] ha[s] never done so nor do[es] [she] have any idea how that is done.” “[She] simply had no mental or emotional capacity to fight back when [Harrington] filed that TRO against [her] and due to missing court, the RO was issued.”