Gardner v. Leahy CA2/4

Filed 3/12/13 Gardner v. Leahy CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

TRACIE E. GARDNER, B233504

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PS013118) v.

ROBERT LEAHY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara M. Scheper, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Leahy, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

Appellant Robert Leahy challenges the trial court’s issuance of a restraining order against him. He contends there was insufficient evidence before the court to support the order. Appellant argues the court erred in allowing hearsay evidence and the remaining 1 evidence failed to meet the standard required by Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support issuance of the restraining order. The court’s order is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Respondent Tracie E. Gardner was a lecturer at California State University, Northridge (the university). Appellant was a student in one of respondent’s classes. Appellant missed an exam required for the class and approached respondent five days later, asking to make up the exam. Respondent denied his request, citing the policy laid out in the course syllabus. Appellant contacted respondent a week later, asking her to reconsider her decision. She again declined. Later that day, a group appellant had agreed to work with on a class project petitioned respondent to have him excluded from the group because he had not been participating or doing the required work. Respondent offered appellant an alternate assignment to the group project so that he would still be able to pass the course. He refused the assignment several times. The following week appellant approached respondent and asked her to reconsider her decisions regarding the exam and the class project. Respondent informed him that her decisions were final and that she was not going to reconsider. After the next class ended, appellant followed respondent to discuss the matter further. Respondent advised him of the proper procedure for disputing an instructor’s decision. She stated that she no longer wanted to talk with him and asked him to leave her alone. He continued to follow her and demanded that she talk with him. During this period, appellant repeatedly e- mailed respondent concerning the matter. Appellant next approached respondent at the beginning of class while she stood at the front of the room. From a distance of 18 inches, appellant told her that he was going