Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 07-567256.
Retired judge of the Superior Court of Marin County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
We conclude in this appeal that a restraining order issued by the trial court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 (section 527.6) which prohibits harassment of plaintiff by defendant is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 24, 2007, plaintiff filed a request for an injunction pursuant section 527.6 to prohibit defendant from personally harassing her. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was a resident at her place of employment, and repeatedly called her names, yelled racial epithets, and threatened to harm her. Defendant filed a response on January 7, 2008. Defendant also requested issuance of a restraining order against plaintiff and plaintiff’s manager at the hotel, Tashia Roy.
A hearing on the requests was held on January 9, 2008. At the hearing plaintiff testified that she worked in a hotel at 124 Turk Street, where defendant resided. According to plaintiff, while she worked at the hotel defendant has “threatened to fight” her, made “faces” and “gestures,” called her “bitches,” “used the N. word” to her, and threatened to have her arrested. Plaintiff also produced incident reports which related acts of harassment by defendant directed at her and other staff members of the hotel.
Defendant denied that she harassed plaintiff or even had “any interaction” with her since May of 2006. Although the testimony offered by defendant at the hearing was far from clear, she also testified that she complained to plaintiff and Tashia Roy of harassment by a hotel maintenance worker named Don. Defendant testified that they refused to listen to her or take any action. Instead, Roy and another woman pushed defendant.
Plaintiff and Roy denied that either of them pushed or physically assaulted defendant in any way. Plaintiff asserted that defendant screamed at them about their failure to remove trash from an elevator, then pushed Roy as plaintiff attempted to intercede. Roy testified that she asked defendant to explain her claim that she “was being harassed by Don,” but defendant “wouldn’t answer” and just continued to yell until Roy asked her to leave the office.
At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court granted plaintiff’s application for a restraining order based upon presentation of “clear and convincing evidence” of harassment by defendant. The court ordered defendant “not to harass or attack or strike or threaten” plaintiff, and stay fifty yards away from her or her vehicle, and six feet away from plaintiff while they are both in the hotel building. Defendant’s request for a restraining order was denied.
DISCUSSION
To the extent we are able to decipher defendant’s argument, she challenges the lack of “direct concrete evidence” to support the trial court’s finding of harassment. She maintains that the court erroneously disregarded her testimony and denials of harassment, and accepted the “fabricated” accounts presented by plaintiff and Tashia Roy. Defendant also complains that the court failed to give her “the opportunity to defend” herself, and did not inform her of her rights to a continuance or “more time to hire” an interpreter. She asks us to reverse the restraining order on grounds that it was issued without legal basis.
“Under section 527.6, a person who has suffered harassment may seek a temporary restraining order and injunction prohibiting it. (§ 527.6, subd. (a).) If the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful harassment exists, such an injunction must be issued. (§ 527.6, subd. (d).)” (Leydon v. Alexander (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1, 4.) “In subdivision (b), harassment is defined as ‘a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.’ ” (Ensworth v. Mullvain (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1105, 1109.)
Defendant’s claim of lack of evidentiary support for the restraining order presents a classic case of conflicting evidence, which we must resolve in favor of plaintiff. The court accepted plaintiff’s testimony and rejected defendant’s denials of harassment. The trial court is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the evidence presented in support of the application for injunctive relief. (Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1450.) “ ‘Where the evidence before the trial court was in conflict, we do not reweigh it or determine the credibility of witnesses on appeal....’ [Citations.]” (Alliant Ins. Services, Inc. v. Gaddy (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1300; see also ReadyLink Healthcare v. Cotton (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016.) “ ‘We resolve all factual conflicts and questions of credibility in favor of the prevailing party and indulge all reasonable inferences to support the trial court’s order.’ [Citation.]” (Haley v. Casa Del Rey Homeowners Assn. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 863, 872; see also Thompson v. 10,000 RV Sales, Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 950, 964; Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405.) “If there is substantial evidence supporting the order, the court’s issuance of the restraining order may not be disturbed.” (In re Cassandra B. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 199, 210–211.)
Upon our review of the record before us we discern substantial evidence – in the form of the testimony of plaintiff and Tashia Roy – to support the trial court’s finding that defendant engaged in a course of harassment. (See Brekke v. Wills, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1414.) We find nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant was in any way denied an opportunity to present a defense to the action.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Marchiano, P. J., Margulies, J.