K.R. v. C.N. CA3

Filed 3/14/23 K.R. v. C.N. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

K.R., C094525

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PC20210126)

v.

C.N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant C.N. challenges a civil harassment restraining order granted to his neighbor, respondent K.R. C.N. contends the order should be reversed because his lawyer was incompetent and the trial judge who heard the matter was biased. We conclude C.N.’s first contention is without merit and the second forfeited by C.N.’s failure to raise the issue below. C.N. further contends that K.R. was not entitled to equitable relief due to unclean hands, a defense that is similarly forfeited because it is raised for the first time on appeal. We will affirm the order.

1

I. BACKGROUND The trial court heard evidence on five requests for a civil harassment restraining order between neighbors in El Dorado County and granted only K.R.’s against C.N. On March 15, 2021, K.R. filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order. K.R. stated: “[C.N.] has constantly and persistently harassed me and my family by screaming insults (white trash, faggot, etc.) and taking advantage of the fact that I have been suffering from a possibly fatal illness by yelling things like ‘if you are so sick just hurry up and die.’ He also has repeatedly allowed his dogs to run free off of[] his property leading them to cause fatal injuries to our livestock. On one occassion [sic] he put a handgun in my face when I came to his front door to tell him that his dogs were running free again. Last Friday, he pulled out a handgun and discharged every round in the magazine while standing along our other neighbor’s fence line (while that neighbor was working on the fence).” On May 20 and 25, 2021, the trial court heard testimony from K.R., C.N., and other witnesses. From this testimony we draw the following facts: K.R., his wife, and two sons, and C.N. and his girlfriend are neighbors separated by a dirt road in a rural area of Placerville. K.R. moved there a little over 10 years ago. C.N. has lived at his residence for 21 years. Relations between K.R. and C.N. were relatively friendly for eight years. Things changed two years ago when C.N.’s dog crawled through a culvert and attacked K.R.’s goat, which sustained severe injuries. C.N. and his girlfriend tried to provide medical care for the goat but it died. C.N. offered compensation for the goat or to replace the goat, but K.R. declined. C.N. blocked the culvert so the dog could no longer get through. About three to six months after the incident, K.R. was shooting on his property to train a dog not to be gun-shy, and the dog got out and ran over to C.N.’s house. K.R. walked to C.N.’s front door to ask for a hand in capturing the dog. Before K.R. could knock, C.N. flung open the door and, according to K.R., held a .45-caliber pistol to