Vi-Geant v. Reynolds CA3

Filed 8/19/22 Vi-Geant v. Reynolds CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

JULIE VI-GEANT,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C093715

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20CV02427)

JAMES REYNOLDS,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Julie Vi-Geant filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against defendant James Reynolds. After a court trial, the trial court denied Vi-Geant’s request and ordered her to pay Reynolds’s attorney’s fees and costs. Vi-Geant appeals, arguing she was entitled to an order granting her request for a civil harassment restraining order and should not be required to pay Reynolds’s attorney’s fees and costs.1 Finding no error, we will affirm the trial court’s orders.

1 Reynolds did not file a brief on appeal.

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Vi-Geant filed the request for a civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.2 She alleged a neighborhood dog was barking and Vi- Geant’s dog barked back from inside the house. Reynolds, who is a neighbor, yelled from the middle of the street, “You keep that damn dog quiet or I’ll . . . .” Apparently, the sentence was not finished. Vi-Geant alleged that this traumatized her because of a prior incident in which Reynolds was angry about dog waste that was left by a dog other than Vi-Geant’s dog. In her request for orders, Vi-Geant asked the trial court to require Reynolds to have a psychiatric evaluation, pay for items she alleged were stolen from her backyard, and pay Sandra Pooley, the owner of the house where Vi-Geant lives, to install locks and a surveillance system. In support of her request for a civil harassment restraining order, Vi-Geant filed her own declaration and a declaration of Pooley, making further allegations against Reynolds. Reynolds retained counsel and responded to the request for a civil harassment restraining order. He denied the allegations and requested $2,500 in attorney’s fees. Reynolds also filed a declaration supporting his response. At a court trial, Vi-Geant, Reynolds, and a neighbor testified. Upon submission of the case, the trial court ruled that Vi-Geant did not meet her burden of proof because she presented only speculation that Reynolds had engaged in any questionable conduct. The trial court found Reynolds to be the prevailing party, dismissed the action, and reserved jurisdiction over attorney’s fees and costs. Later, the trial court awarded $2,500 in attorney’s fees and $94 in costs to Reynolds under section 526.7, subdivision (s).