Opinion
E077204
08-15-2022
CHRISTINA DURAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHELLE MCCOLLUM, Defendant and Appellant.
Michelle K. McCollum in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. CVSW2101925 Anthony R. Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle K. McCollum in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
CODRINGTON J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Michelle Kathleen McCollum, proceeding in pro. per., appeals the trial court's order granting Christina Duran a three-year civil harassment restraining order against her. We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Duran was appointed as an investigator for Miguel Bustamante in his criminal case. McCollum told Duran that she was Bustamante's "legal runner" and that they were in a romantic relationship and intended to get married. Duran and McCollum began corresponding and speaking frequently about Bustamante's case. Duran later learned, however, that McCollum was a prosecutorial witness and that there was a "gag order" in place. Duran asked McCollum not to contact her because they could no longer speak about the case.
Yet, McCollum continued contacting Duran. Duran blocked McCollum's phone number, but McCollum made a "pseudo email" account pretending to be Bustamante and asking Duran to give him his "court-ordered funds." McCollum also used the email account to demand that Duran perform investigative tasks for Bustamante.
While at the trial court courthouse, McCollum approached Duran and Bustamante's actual "legal runner. McCollum asked them if they could her into the courthouse basement to meet with Bustamante. Duran "turned [McCollum] away."
McCollum continued emailing Duran with the fake Bustamante email account. She told Duran to perform more investigative tasks and provided the names and contact information of people she wanted Duran to speak with about Bustamante's case. Duran sent McCollum a "very firm" email directing McCollum not to contact her again and told her that she was not helping Bustamante's case.
Duran eventually learned that McCollum had contacted several of her colleagues in the investigative industry. She told them that Duran was a "mole" for the District Attorney who overbilled the county and that there were several lawsuits against her. McCollum also accused Duran of being "inappropriate" with her child clients. Because of McCollum's accusations, Duran had to conflict herself out of Bustamante's case.
Duran then filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against McCollum. Duran feared for her safety because of McCollum's behavior and "emotions," particularly when she spoke to Duran at the courthouse. McCollum's behavior also caused Duran "unbelievably severe emotional distress" and made Duran fear for her reputation as an investigator.
Duran did not provide McCollum's request in the record on appeal.
After receiving testimony from Duran and McCollum, the trial court granted Duran's request and entered a three-year restraining order against McCollum. McCollum timely appealed.
III.
DISCUSSION
McCollum, who is representing herself on appeal, argues the trial court erroneously granted Duran a three-year restraining order for a series of reasons. McCollum's opening brief is difficult to follow, but to the extent we can understand her arguments, they are either forfeited or unpersuasive.
We first note that McCollum has not provided an adequate record for our review. In particular, McCollum did not provide Duran's request for a restraining order or Duran's declaration, which the trial court expressly relied on in making its ruling. For this reason alone, we must affirm the trial court's order. (See Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ["[A] party challenging a judgment has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record."]; Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 ["Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant]."].)
McCollum's primary argument is that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's order. We disagree. Duran's testimony that she feared for her safety and suffered severe emotional distress because of McCollum's behavior provided the substantial evidence necessary for the trial court to find that a three-year restraining order against McCollum was appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (b) [civil restraining order appropriate if petitioner reasonably suffered emotional distress and/or reasonably feared for his or her safety because of restrained person's conduct]; R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 181, 188 [civil harassment restraining order reviewed for substantial evidence]; In re Marriage of Fregoso &Hernandez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 698, 703 ["The testimony of one witness, even that of a party, may constitute substantial evidence."].)
McCollum next argues the trial court erred because it relied on Duran's declaration, which McCollum claims she never received and did not have the chance to rebut. McCollum forfeited these arguments by failing to object in the trial court. Throughout the hearing, Duran and the trial court referred to Duran's declaration, and the trial court expressly relied on it when stating its ruling. McCollum, however, never raised any objection about Duran's declaration. She therefore forfeited any argument that the trial court improperly relied on it. (See Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 521-523.)
In a scattershot approach, McCollum also argues that the trial court violated her federal and state due process rights by not allowing her to "rebut" Duran's declaration and to call witnesses. McCollum further contends that the trial court failed to provide her a fair hearing and committed prejudicial evidentiary error by excluding Duran's declaration. McCollum forfeited these arguments by failing to object on any ground in the trial court. (Tanguilig v. Valdez, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at pp. 521-523; People v. $17,522.08 United States Currency (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1084 [party forfeits constitutional rights by failing to object].) This is because "[a] party on appeal cannot successfully complain because the trial court failed to do something which it was not asked to do." (Farmer Bros. Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 976, 993.) In any event, the trial court allowed McCollum to testify extensively at the hearing, did not preclude her from introducing any evidence or calling witnesses, and did not exclude Duran's declaration.
We conclude Duran forfeited all of her due process and evidentiary arguments for the additional reason that she fails to support them with coherent, reasoned argument. (See In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 ["To demonstrate error, appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error"]; Nelson v. Avondale Homeowners Assn. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 857, 862 [An appellant forfeits an issue when he makes only a blanket, conclusory statement, with no citation to authority or discussion of the authority as it applies to the facts of the case.]; Berger v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 989, 1007 [appellant must make coherent argument in appellate briefs and failure to do so forfeits the issue on appeal].) In short, McCollum fails to show that the trial court erred.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order granting Duran a three-year civil harassment restraining order against McCollum is affirmed. Duran may recover her costs on appeal.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J., MILLER J.