Herriott v. Herriott CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Sep 15, 2022 No. B311922Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a civil harassment restraining order because the appellant failed to provide evidence that the respondent engaged in unlawful violence, made credible threats, or engaged in a course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a request for a civil harassment restraining order under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.
Whether the appellant preserved the issue of excluded witness testimony for appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court was well within its discretion in concluding that none of these actions was an act of or a threat of violence, and none of these actions would place a reasonable person in fear for her own or her family’s safety.”

“The evidence before the trial court did not compel a finding for Paula as a matter of law.”

Filed 9/15/22 Herriott v. Herriott CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

PAULA HERRIOTT, B311922

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20TRRO00819) v.

PARKER RICHARD HERRIOTT,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Glenda Veasey, Commissioner. Affirmed. Paula Herriott, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Paula Herriott (Paula) appeals from an order denying her request for a civil harassment restraining order against her uncle, respondent Parker Richard Herriott (Parker).1 We find no error, and thus we will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Based on the sparse appellate record before us, we glean the following facts relevant to this appeal. Paula’s father, Paul Herriott (Paul), died in June 2021. After Paul’s death, his brother Parker became the trustee of Paul’s trust. Among the trust property was an apartment building in which Paula lives with her sister Ruth Herriott (Ruth) and her mother Alicja Herriott (Alicja) On December 10, 2020, Paula filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Parker on behalf of herself, Alicja, and Ruth. In support, she said: “We fear for our lives. Parker is tampering with the cars, inflicting fear and threatening he will hurt himself on the property and blame us.” In her application for a restraining order, she described the following incidents of alleged harassment: “On October 15, 2020, Paula and Alicja were outside apartment 123 24th Street [sic], instructing tree trimmers to cut the branches from the trees, when Parker shows up and demands to stop all the works. Even though Parker has ‘stay away’ court– restraining order against Alicja he is very 2 feed [sic] next to her. Parker demands from Alicja to leave her premises. Hermosa

Herriott v. Herriott CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PAULA HERRIOTT, B311922

PARKER RICHARD HERRIOTT,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.

EGERTON, J.

AI Brief