Offerman v. McCurtis CA2/6

Filed 4/30/13 Offerman v. McCurtis CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

DONALD OFFERMAN, 2d Civil No. B239370 (Super. Ct. Nos. 56-2011-00408205- Plaintiff and Appellant, CU-HR-VTA, 56-2011-00408208- CU-HR-VTA) v. (Ventura County)

MICHAEL McCURTIS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Donald Offerman appeals judgments denying his applications for harassment injunctions (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6) against defendants Michael McCurtis and Billy Hammock.1 We conclude, among other things, that: 1) Offerman has not shown that the trial court displayed bias against him during an evidentiary hearing, and 2) the court did not abuse its discretion by denying injunctive relief. We affirm. FACTS Offerman was "a live-in caretaker" at Pastor McCurtis's church. He decided to leave the church because McCurtis gave him "an ultimatum" to "either do as he wanted . . . or leave." McCurtis did not give him sufficient time to remove his belongings or to "obtain other housing." In June 2011, Offerman and a friend returned to the church to pick up Offerman's "personal items." McCurtis said he wanted to talk to Offerman "alone."

1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Offerman testified this request was "very disturbing to [him]." He said, "I immediately went into the adjacent fellowship wall." McCurtis followed him. Offerman testified McCurtis "got into my face." "[McCurtis] had his chest and his face about three inches away from my face, and in a loud, aggressive tone of voice and demeanor, he told me to get out of the church." After leaving the church, Offerman asked McCurtis's father, also a pastor, for "a letter of reference." Offerman "didn't want to be around" McCurtis. People associated with McCurtis contacted Offerman. Elizabeth, McCurtis's sister, invited him to a wedding. Offerman believed this was threatening because, if he went, he might come in contact with McCurtis. Offerman felt Hammock was a threat to him because he "did not intervene" when McCurtis asked Offerman to leave the church and Hammock "was starring at [Offerman] with a mean look." He also felt Hammock was a threat to him because he recently left a voice message stating he had "a letter from Pastor." Offerman filed requests for "Orders to Stop Harassment" against McCurtis and Hammock. (§ 527.6.) He appeared in propria persona and was the only witness at the hearing. The trial court denied the requests for injunctive relief. It found there was no evidence to support an injunction against Hammock or McCurtis based on alleged harassment. DISCUSSION Denying Injunctive Relief Offerman contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for injunctive relief against McCurtis and Hammock. He claims the record shows: 1) the trial court was "biased" against him during the hearing, and 2) it erred by rejecting his evidence of harassment by the defendants, including facts showing "a conspiracy to lure [him] to vulnerable locations." We disagree. "A person who has suffered harassment . . . may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting" that conduct. (§ 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court