Jones v. Salvo CA2/1

Filed 3/25/13 Jones v. Salvo CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

PAMELA K. JONES, B235515

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NS019359) v.

GAETANO SALVO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michele E. Flurer, Judge. Reversed. Gaetano Salvo, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Pamela K. Jones, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Appellant Gaetano Salvo rented a garage on property purchased by Pamela K. Jones. Without obtaining a writ of possession, Jones obtained a restraining order ordering Salvo to not harass Jones and to stay 100 yards away from Jones, her home, workplace, and vehicle, which dispossessed Salvo of possession of the garage. On appeal, Salvo contends that the trial court erred in issuing the restraining order because Jones failed to obtain a writ of possession after the court entered a judgment in her favor on an unlawful detainer complaint against him. We agree and reverse the order. BACKGROUND In March 2011, Jones closed escrow on residential property located at 3503 South Kerckhoff Avenue, San Pedro, California (the property). She subsequently discovered that Salvo had possession of a “middle garage, attached to her home,” pursuant to a “month-to-month garage rental agreement” that Salvo and a previous owner of the property had entered into in February 2010 (garage rental agreement). The garage rental agreement stated that the garage was to be used “only for storage.” According to Jones, “Salvo was to have vacated the garage upon transfer of ownership. He did not vacate.” On March 23, 2011, Jones served Salvo with a 30-day “notice to vacate,” requiring Salvo to vacate the property no later than April 19, 2011, 5:00 p.m., and limiting his access to the garage between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Subsequently, Jones concluded that Salvo was living in the garage because he purportedly “remained in the garage all hours of the day and night,” including “midnight, 3:00 a.m., 5:00 a.m.”; used Jones‟s address as a mailing address and rummaged through Jones‟s mailbox; collected water from her front yard hose in five-gallon water containers several times a week; and maintained a pet cat in the garage. As a result, Jones allegedly suffered “emotional distress, with feelings of her being violated by a stranger, compromising her safety.” Jones served Salvo with a three-day notice to quit on March 29, 2011. Salvo continued to reside in the garage, which “created health and safety concerns for Jones,” supposedly causing Jones “even more emotional distress.” On April 27, 2011, Jones filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Salvo, which stated that Salvo “is in possession of the premises located at . . . Middle garage at