L.O. v. Kilrain

Filed 10/18/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

L.O., 2d Civ. No. B321294 (Cons. w/ B322754) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CV04198, 22CV01697) v. (Santa Barbara County)

DAVID MATTHEW KILRAIN, Defendant and Appellant.

_____________________________

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAVID MATTHEW KILRAIN, Defendant and Appellant.

Failure to comply with time-honored rules of appellate procedure may result in forfeiture of the issues on appeal. David Matthew Kilrain appeals from a three-year workplace violence restraining order obtained against him by the

City of Santa Barbara (the City) on behalf of five of its employees, and a five-year civil harassment restraining order obtained by L.O.1 (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 527.6, 527.8; all statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure). We will affirm both restraining orders. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In October 2021, L.O. petitioned for a restraining order against Kilrain pursuant to section 527.6. The petition alleged that Kilrain had been harassing L.O. because she is transgender by, among other things, posting disturbing YouTube videos about her, using a cell phone to film her, and committing an assault against her.2 The court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) pending an evidentiary hearing. Following the hearing at which L.O. and Kilrain testified, the trial court found that L.O.’s testimony was “credible” and that Kilrain had demonstrated “that he does, in general, have animus towards transgender people.” The court rejected Kilrain’s assertion that L.O.’s allegations against him were “motivated by a broader political agenda or any local political agenda surrounding the mayor[al] election of 2021,” in which Kilrain was a candidate, and added “[t]here’s simply no evidence that . . . [L.O.] is involved in any sort of conspiracy.” Accordingly, the court issued a five-year