Man v. Franklin CA2/2
Filed 5/2/23 Man v. Franklin CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
KHOEUTH MAN, B320726
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22WHRO00272) v.
VALENTINA FRANKLIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Faith F. Nuri, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Kenneth H. Lewis for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Office of Peacock & Le Beau and Jeffery O. Le Beau for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
Khoeuth Man (Man) obtained a civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6)1 against Valentina Franklin (Franklin), who now appeals. She argues that (1) her actions did not constitute either unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence, and (2) her actions did not constitute a course of conduct that constitutes harassment. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 16, 2022, Man filed a request for civil harassment restraining order. The petition alleged that he and Franklin worked together; Josefina Santos (Santos) was his supervisor. According to the petition, Franklin harassed him, his wife, and Santos by calling him, texting him, impersonating him on social media, complaining about him at work, spreading rumors about him, and sending men to his home. Copies of the text messages were attached to the petition. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and then set the matter for a hearing. At the March 10, 2022, hearing, the trial court confirmed with Man that “everything [he] put in [his] petition [was] accurate.” It then reviewed the printout of the text messages that was attached to the petition with the parties. Thereafter, Man and Franklin testified. Man attested that Franklin “text[ed him] unsolicited, call[ed him] unsolicited.” He also stated that Franklin threatened to hurt him. He was afraid that Franklin was going to get him fired from his job.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)