Opinion
F073577
05-11-2017
TED VILLALVA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LEONARD PESQUERIA, Defendant and Respondent.
Ted Villalva, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16CECG00835)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Lisa M. Gamoian, Judge. Ted Villalva, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant, Ted Villalva, challenges the trial court's denial of his request for a permanent restraining order against respondent, Leonard Pesqueria.
Appellant and respondent are neighbors in an apartment complex. They have argued with each other at various times, generally over respondent's grandchildren. Specifically, appellant accused respondent and his wife, Betsie Pesqueria, of urging their grandchildren to play near appellant's apartment to bother him. Appellant also claimed respondent had threatened him with physical harm.
At appellant's request, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order against respondent. The trial court then set an order to show cause hearing on a permanent restraining order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (g).
All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. --------
Following the hearing, the trial court denied appellant's request. The court held that appellant failed to meet his burden of proof.
DISCUSSION
At a hearing on a permanent restraining order, the petitioner has the burden to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that unlawful harassment exists. (§ 527.6, subd. (i).)
The decision to grant a restraining order rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. (Church of Christ in Hollywood v. Superior Court (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1251.) Such an abuse of discretion exists only when the trial court has "'"exceeded the bounds of reason or contravened the uncontradicted evidence."'" (Ibid.) The party challenging the trial court's order must make a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)
Here, appellant has not shown that the trial court "exceeded the bounds of reason or contravened the uncontradicted evidence" when it denied a permanent restraining order. Rather, appellant has merely reiterated his claims of harassment without setting forth what, if any, evidence or law supports finding the trial court abused its discretion.
Further, according to the trial court's order denying the permanent restraining order, respondent submitted various declarations from neighbors disputing appellant's claim. However, appellant has not included these declarations in the appellate record. Thus, appellant has failed to meet his burden of providing an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575.)
In sum, appellant has failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, we must presume the trial court's judgment was correct. (Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 554, 563.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. No costs on appeal are awarded.