Rodriguez v. Wong CA1/5

Filed 12/13/23 Rodriguez v. Wong CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

FIONNA MARIE VALDES RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner and Respondent, A167484

v. (San Mateo County STEPHEN WONG, Super. Ct. No. 21-CIV-05885) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and appellant Stephen Wong (appellant) appeals from a restraining order granted in favor of petitioner and respondent Fionna Marie Valdes Rodriguez (respondent). Because the evidence did not support a finding of future harassment, we reverse. Appellant and respondent met at the San Francisco Police Academy in 2016 and both eventually ended up assigned to the San Francisco International Airport. They were friends at work, and they often shared meals and exchanged text messages. The text messages were often jokes, and sometimes the jokes were sexually charged. Respondent sent some of these sexual jokes. On October 16, 2021, appellant visited respondent while she worked alone at a cargo check point. According to respondent’s testimony, appellant

1

came up to her while she was sitting in a chair, put his leg between her legs, pushed her legs open with his leg, and said “ ‘Spread open for me.’ ” Respondent was disturbed by appellant’s conduct; she explained in her testimony, “We joke around a lot, but this was like stepping over the line because this is a place that I work in. . . . [A]t the moment, I felt like he wasn’t himself. He was somebody that I was friends with, like he crossed that line of touching me.” Respondent stood up and “played it off and joked around with [appellant] and said, ‘You know, you’re acting crazy.’ ” She changed the topic and mentioned food that would be at her son’s birthday party the next day, and appellant asked, “ ‘What kind of meat do you guys have?’ ” Appellant then “proceeded to make a joke about how, you know, it would be nice if my taco was bouncing on his sausage and just kind of those jokes that he made that [were] sexual in nature.” Respondent “laughed it off and told him, ‘Hey, you know, you need to simmer down;’ ” appellant replied, “ ‘only if I cum.’ ” Eventually, appellant left. Respondent testified the October 16 incident felt “different” than their previous joking. The next day, appellant attended a birthday party for respondent’s son. He acted like nothing had happened. The day after the party, respondent reported the October 16 incident to her supervisor, and thereafter appellant was summoned to his captain’s office and informed of appellant’s complaint. Appellant and respondent never had any communication after respondent made her complaint. Appellant testified, without any inconsistent testimony by respondent, that respondent never previously told him his sexualized joking was inappropriate or made her uncomfortable, and that he never made any attempt to contact respondent after learning of her complaint. On November 2, 2021, respondent filed a “Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders” (Request). Respondent requested a