Najafifard v. Mehdi CA2/7

Filed 6/12/13 Najafifard v. Mehdi CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

HOURIEH NAJAFIFARD, B236300 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. LS021695)

v.

AHMADI MEHDI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leland B. Harris, Judge. Affirmed.

Ahmadi Mehdi, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Hourieh Najafifard, Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

INTRODUCTION

Ahmadi Mehdi appeals from the issuance of a restraining order against him. Because Mehdi failed to provide this court with a record sufficient to review this matter, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Hourieh Najafifard filed a CH-100 Request for Orders to Stop Harassment on July 8, 2011.1 After conducting a hearing on the matter on July 27, 2011, the court issued a restraining order against Mehdi, to expire in two years. Mehdi timely appealed. The hearing was only reported in part, and the reporter’s transcript submitted on appeal indicated that the reporter left before the conclusion of the proceedings. On August 24, 2012, Mehdi made a motion in this Court to augment the record and to obtain a settled statement of the omitted proceedings. On September 13, 2012, no opposition having been filed, we ordered Mehdi to file a condensed narrative with the trial court and ordered a settled statement or corrected record to be prepared after hearing. The Superior Court file contains a two-page document designated as a condensed narrative filed by Mehdi on October 2, 2012. At the hearing on November 6, 2012, the court, appearing to conclude that the document was argument rather than a condensed narrative, issued a minute order reciting its findings, and the basis for its conclusions. In its order, the court indicated that it had no independent recollection of the original hearing, but had reviewed its minute order and the CH-100 and its attachments; the court drew the inference that, after hearing from the parties, it had determined that Najafifard was credible, and Mehdi was not, and on that basis sustained the petition by clear and convincing evidence.