Sharp v. Paul CA2/8

Filed 3/29/13 Sharp v. Paul CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

PRESTON SHARP, B242280

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GS013993) v.

DEBORAH PAUL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Reversed.

Caldwell Leslie & Proctor, Andrew A. Esbenshade and Jeffrey M. Chemerinsky for Defendant and Appellant.

Preston Sharp, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

*******

Respondent Preston Sharp lived in a house owned by appellant Deborah Paul. He lived rent free with the understanding he would oversee substantial repairs to the residence. When Paul no longer wanted Sharp‟s services, she asked him to move out of the residence. As a result of conduct not relevant to the current appeal, Paul successfully sought a restraining order against Sharp. Sharp simultaneously successfully sought a restraining order against Paul. On appeal, Paul challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the restraining order entered against her. Because we conclude the restraining order is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse and dissolve it. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In his request for a civil harassment order, Sharp described Paul‟s harassment as follows: “She was having me physically removed by her „family‟ since sent harassing texts till 3-5-12.” (Sic.) “3-1-12 told neighbors.” “On January 23rd she came to the jobsite/my residence and pointed a 357 magnum directly at my face from appx. 18 [inches]. Her partime [sic] boyfriend . . . was standing behind her. She has made it clear this individual hates me, has terminated my employment, and harassed me since.” Sharp described Paul‟s harassment as constant since February 22, 2012. At a hearing, Sharp attempted to specify the harassment but had some difficulty describing Paul‟s harassing behavior.1 Sharp explained he was fearful when Paul forgot things and believed she may have suffered from “disingenuous disremembering.” Sharp was upset by the reasons Paul gave for terminating his employment, which Sharp described as incorrect hearsay statements. Sharp believed it was “harassment to cover up [Paul] fired [him] because her feelings were hurt.” Sharp was concerned Paul hit her mailbox when driving away from the house and considered that conduct harassing. Sharp