From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hollis-Arrington v. Bonhomme

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B202044 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)

Opinion


BEVERLY ANN HOLLIS-ARRINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ELLEN S. BONHOMME, Defendant and Respondent. BEVERLY ANN HOLLIS-ARRINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BILLY WEBB, Defendant and Respondent B202044, B202049 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division September 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Nos. LS016069, LS016071. Mitchell Block, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.).

Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendants and Respondents.

HASTINGS, J.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

SUMMARY

Plaintiff Beverly Ann Hollis-Arrington appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (d). She contends the trial court was biased against her, the trial court improperly denied injunctive relief, and “law enforcement” violated her right to equal protection. We affirm.

Unless otherwise noted, all subsequent statutory references pertain to the Code of Civil Procedure.

BACKGROUND

Appellant sought and obtained temporary restraining orders against Ellen Bonhomme and Billy Webb, who lived in the house across the street from appellant’s home. Because appellant did not include her request for a restraining order in the appellate record or in her request for judicial notice, it is unclear what particular orders she sought or what she said in explanation of her request. The trial court apparently issued the temporary restraining orders against each of the respondents, who filed answers. A modification permitted Webb to park his work truck a minimum of 25 yards from appellant’s home, rather than 100 yards. Bonhomme filed her own request, and obtained a temporary restraining order against appellant.

At the subsequent hearing, Bonhomme’s action was dismissed and her restraining order against appellant was dissolved due to a bounced check.

At the same hearing, each party gave unsworn statements to the court. Appellant told the court that the dispute with respondents began when Bonhomme left a note on the car of a hospice nurse treating appellant’s sister at appellant’s home. Appellant destroyed the note. Webb parked his work truck on the street in front of his own house “to block the nurses from getting in.” One of the nurses had words with respondents. Webb then came to appellant’s house and asked to talk to her. Appellant replied, “If you must.” Webb asked why the nurses did not park in front of appellant’s home. Appellant replied that the nurses could park anywhere on the street. Webb became belligerent and threw his arms up. Appellant’s children heard this and ran outside. Webb left, but “committed a big commotion in the street.” Webb continued to park his work truck along the street in front of his residence. Appellant repeatedly called the “D.O.T.” to come out and ticket Webb’s truck. Appellant called Webb’s employer and complained about the truck.

Appellant also told the court that “people are in the window … harassing … saying something, doing something.” In addition, the boyfriend of Bonhomme’s daughter threatened one of appellant’s clients, inaudibly threatened someone, and stood in respondents’ driveway “slamming” a baseball bat against his own hand. Webb once paced up and down the street when appellant was not home, then spoke to her when she arrived home. She told the court she did not know what Webb was talking about, but asked if he was threatening her again. Webb replied, “You take this anyway you want,” but then said he wasn’t threatening her. On another occasion, Webb blocked her driveway with his car. Appellant told the court that “there is a police case,” and a detective told her to go to court and see what could be done. In rebuttal, appellant told the court that respondents had made racial slurs against her, and that Bonhomme’s daughter and boyfriend did this from respondents’ driveway while Bonhomme was “in the window.”

Bonhomme told the court that after someone parked in front of her house for more than five days, she left a polite note asking if the person could park elsewhere because Bonhomme’s handicapped parents were coming for dinner and she would like for them to be able to park there. The next day, the person in that car made a rude gesture at Bonhomme after again parking in front of Bonhomme’s house. Webb later tried to explain to appellant that they were making a parking area on their lot for Webb’s truck, but appellant and her daughter yelled at him, so he immediately left. Appellant sent a letter to Webb’s employer, calling Webb a Nazi and Klansman and threatening to sue the employer and Webb for racketeering. Appellant also telephoned and e-mailed Webb’s employer. Appellant photographed respondents and called Bonhomme a tramp and Bonhomme’s daughter a whore. Appellant blocked Webb’s car with trash cans and turned on the sprinklers to douse his car. Respondents tried to pursue dispute resolution, but appellant refused to participate. The weekend prior to the hearing, respondents moved out of their house because they could no longer take appellant’s harassment.

After listening to everything the parties had to say and receiving their exhibits, the court stated, “I am not convinced that Mr. Webb or Ms. Bonhomme is doing any of the things that you say that they are doing.” The court therefore dissolved the temporary restraining order and dismissed appellant’s actions against respondents.

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that the trial court was biased against her and erred by denying her an injunction under 527.6, subdivision (d). In support of this contention, she makes several subsidiary arguments, including that the court found she was not credible and apparently had an ex parte contact with respondents because the court knew Webb had “clear[ed] up some … tickets.”

Determining credibility was solely within the purview of the trial court. The court’s adverse credibility determination does not demonstrate bias. A review of the transcript of the hearing reveals that the trial court treated all of the parties with respect, gave each party a full opportunity to tell his or her story, then made a decision. There is no indication of bias. Although it appears that Bonhomme paid a filing fee with a check that bounced, this did not mean that the court was required to believe appellant.

The record does not support appellant’s assertion regarding an ex parte contact. At the hearing, respondents handed the court “letters” and additional documents. The court apparently looked at these documents, and subsequently stated, “It looks like that you won a couple of contested citations.” Webb agreed that he had. Appellant’s complaint that she could not find such a document in the court file is readily explained by the court’s request that the parties take back their “paperwork” at the conclusion of the hearing. It is clear that Webb presented the court with a stack of documents, which the court reviewed.

The trial court’s task was to determine whether appellant was entitled to an injunction under section 527.6. The court properly assessed the credibility of the parties and determined that injunctive relief was inappropriate.

We need not address appellant’s remaining contentions, which all essentially challenge the trial court’s credibility determination.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Appellant is to bear her own costs on appeal.

We concur: MALLANO, P.J., ROTHSCHILD, J.


Summaries of

Hollis-Arrington v. Bonhomme

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B202044 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)
Case details for

Hollis-Arrington v. Bonhomme

Case Details

Full title:BEVERLY ANN HOLLIS-ARRINGTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ELLEN S…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Sep 25, 2008

Citations

No. B202044 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)