Lopez v. Valdez CA2/7

Filed 1/11/24 Lopez v. Valdez CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

ARTHUR LOPEZ, B324256

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 22STRO05463)

ROBERT VALDEZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia A. Young, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur Lopez, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. _________________

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Arthur Lopez, representing himself, appeals from an order denying his petition for a civil harassment restraining order against his ex-wife Cheryl Lopez’s “associate” Robert Valdez, who Lopez claimed in his petition is involved in drug trafficking, prostitution, and other criminal activities. In his petition Lopez alleged that on May 14, 2022 Valdez, having been served with a subpoena in another (apparently related) case, “became violent and proceeded to assault [Lopez] with repeated threats of bodily harm and pursued [Lopez] as part of his assault,” even though Lopez “was standing over a block away on a public sidewalk.” Lopez further alleged Valdez followed up the assault with written threats to rape and injure Lopez. Attached to Lopez’s petition were several text messages containing threats to do bodily harm to Lopez. Lopez also alleged Valdez was involved in repossessing cars, colluded with Cheryl Lopez “to withhold” Lopez’s car from him, was evading service, and gave false testimony in an Orange County Superior Court case. The trial court, after finding Valdez was evading service, granted Lopez’s request to serve Valdez by mail and continued the hearing on the petition. A month later, Lopez (remotely) and Valdez (in person) appeared at the continued hearing. The proceedings were transcribed by a court reporter. The court’s minute order states that both parties testified and that the court received into evidence text messages submitted by Valdez. The order states: “The Court finds the party requesting the order of protection did not sustain the applicable burden of proof and accordingly the request is denied. Any temporary restraining