A.C. v. Parras CA6

Filed 12/6/22 A.C. v. Parras CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

A.C., H049610 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 21CV003048)

v.

STEPHANNE PARRAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant StephAnne Parras,1 representing herself, appeals a civil harassment restraining order entered against her pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 based on her conduct toward her then-neighbor, A.C.2 Parras raises a number of contentions, principally that the trial court violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Consistent with appellant’s briefing in this court, we spell her last name as 1

“Parras.” The trial court records (including the restraining order) spell her last name as “Porras.” 2 To protect her personal privacy interests and pursuant to the applicable rules of

court, we refer to the protected person by her initials. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(5).) A.C. has not participated in this appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A.C. and Parras were next-door neighbors in Seaside for a number of years. 3 On September 28, 2021,4 A.C. filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Parras, alleging that Parras had harassed her. On October 28, the trial court conducted a court trial on A.C.’s request for a restraining order against Parras. A.C. and Parras were present in the courtroom and represented themselves. At the outset of the hearing, the trial court asked the parties to identify themselves. Parras refused to come forward or state her name. When the trial court questioned her whether she was the respondent, Parras responded that “I am not. The spelling is wrong, and I am not that person.”5 A.C. identified herself and identified Parras as the person against whom she was seeking a restraining order. The trial court confirmed that Parras had been served by the Seaside Police Department on September 29.6 A.C. testified that she had lived next door to Parras for a number of years. Their dispute began when Parras stated she did not like “flower petals” going across her driveway from A.C.’s yard. A.C. had tried “everything” to try to accommodate Parras but the situation had “spiraled from there.” Parras would climb on A.C.’s roof and look into her yard. Additionally, Parras had “tampered” with A.C.’s security cameras. A police officer had informed A.C. that she could either move or get a restraining order against Parras. A.C. testified that, on September 21, another incident occurred that prompted her to seek a restraining order against Parras. On that day, it was “really warm” and A.C.