D.C. v. A.L. CA3

Filed 12/6/22 D.C. v. A.L. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

D.C., C095372

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STAFLDVWO20210003185) v.

A.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

At the conclusion of a November 2021 hearing, the trial court issued two domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), requiring appellant A.L. and her brother D.C. to stay away from each other. A.L. appeals, arguing the trial court erred by issuing the DVRO against her. We affirm the judgment (order).

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In early November 2021, appellant’s brother filed a request for a DVRO against appellant. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and set the matter for a hearing later that month. Days later, appellant filed her own request for a DVRO against her brother. Both appellant and her brother provided evidence at a hearing later that month.

1

Appellant’s brother told the trial court appellant moved in with him in December 2020, but he was the only one named on the lease of the residence. In October 2021, when appellant was moving out, she tried to take his personal property. When he took the property back, appellant bit him on the leg three times. Appellant’s brother apparently showed to the trial court a picture of a door jamb of the residence that appellant damaged during the incident. He also explained that appellant took his “personal medical shoes,” valued at almost $2,000. Appellant’s brother told the trial court he had “messages [appellant] left when she broke” the temporary restraining order. “She violated the order knowingly,” her brother said. “I’ll listen to those messages,” the trial court replied. Appellant’s brother apparently then played for the trial court the voicemail messages. Appellant told the trial court her brother twisted her hand when he tried to retrieve the disputed personal property, and she bit him when he attacked her. She admitted she took her brother’s medical shoes, insisting she did so “because he took [her] shoes and just threw them away.” Appellant told the trial court she still had a lot of personal property at her brother’s residence. “I just want to move my stuff,” she maintained. When the trial court queried whether there was a third party they both trusted who could retrieve appellant’s property from the residence, appellant’s brother identified a shared relative. But appellant said she did not trust that person. At the end of the hearing the trial court made its ruling: “You chose to live together for a while. It didn’t work out. Now it’s an ugly situation.” “I have heard evidence by a preponderance of the evidence that abuse has been established . . . .” “I . . . make a specific finding that you both acted as primary aggressors . . . on different occasions. . . . Each of your restraining orders are going to be granted.” The trial court ordered appellant and her brother not to have any contact with each other and to stay 100 yards away from each other.