Victoria R. v. Bar-Lev CA4/1

Filed 11/21/23 Victoria R. v. Bar-Lev CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

VICTORIA R., D080206

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- 00031657-CU-HR-EC NAOMI YAEL BAR-LEV,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed. Naomi Yael Bar-Lev, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Victoria R., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Naomi Yael Bar-Lev appeals from the trial court’s January 3, 2022 order granting a one-year civil harassment restraining order for Victoria R. and her minor son C.R. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6.) Bar-Lev is the

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

longtime girlfriend of Chris R., Victoria’s former husband. Chris and Victoria have two children, A.R. and C.R. There are four appeals currently pending in

this court involving these same parties.2 Bar-Lev is appearing in propria persona as she did in the trial court. Although self-represented, we may not excuse Bar-Lev from following the rules of appellate procedure. (See Stover v. Bruntz (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 19, 31 [“ ‘as is the case with attorneys, [self-represented] litigants must follow correct rules of procedure’ ”]; accord Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 (Nwosu) [a self-represented party “ ‘is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys’ ”].) A trial court’s judgment or order is presumed correct and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively show error on appeal. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [“ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ”]; accord Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608−609.) To make this showing, the appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to facts in the record and authority to support the claim of error. (Multani v. Witkin & Neal (2013)