Filed 7/21/26 Bueno v. LeMoyne CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
REBECCA DIANE BUENO, B339907
Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24STRO02273)
v.
CEDRIC LEMOYNE,
Appellant.
APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of the County of
Los Angeles, Michael R. Powell, Judge. Affirmed.
Schonbuch Hallissy, Michael Schonbuch and Abigail E.
Morelli, for Appellant.
Law Offices of Jonathan Reza and Jonathan Reza for
Respondent.
Cedric LeMoyne and Rebecca Bueno sought domestic
violence restraining orders (DVRO) against one another pursuant
to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code,
§ 6200 et seq.).1 The family court granted both petitions.
LeMoyne appeals from the DVRO against him. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In May 2024, the family court conducted an evidentiary
hearing on petitions for DVROs that LeMoyne and Bueno filed
against each other.
The parties began a relationship in early 2023, and
LeMoyne ended it in early 2024. LeMoyne presented evidence
that Bueno harassed him, damaged his car, and sought a friend’s
help to find someone to physically harm him. Bueno testified
that LeMoyne physically abused her by infecting her with the
herpes simplex-1 virus (HSV-1) during their relationship.
The family court found that both parties engaged in abuse,
granted both petitions, and issued mutual three-year DVROs.
LeMoyne appeals from the order granting Bueno’s petition.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, LeMoyne contends the abuse finding against
him was not supported by substantial evidence, and even if there
were such evidence, the DVRO was “moot” because it could not
prevent recurrence of the abuse.
We review the grant of a DVRO for abuse of discretion. In
reviewing the trial court’s factual findings, we examine whether
1 Undesignated statutory references in this opinion are to the
Family Code, and undesignated references to rules are to the
California Rules of Court.
2
they are supported by substantial evidence, and we do not assess
whether different findings could have been made. (M.S. v. A.S.
(2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1139, 1143–1144.) We accept as true all
evidence tending to establish the correctness of the findings and
resolve every conflict in favor of the order. (Id. at p. 1144.)
A. Deficient Appellate Record
As a preliminary matter, we note our review of the DVRO
is impeded by a deficient appellate record. LeMoyne elected to
proceed on a record consisting of a reporter’s transcript and
appendix but never filed an appendix. We lack the parties’
petitions, declarations and exhibits, and Bueno’s response to
LeMoyne’s petition. Though we will address LeMoyne’s
arguments, the family court’s order can be affirmed on the basis
that LeMoyne has failed to meet his burden of providing a record
allowing review of the complete basis for the family court’s
decision. (See Hernandez v. California Hospital Medical Center
(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 498, 502 [record inadequate to permit
review of order granting motion where record did not include
motion, opposition, or order]; rules 8.120(a)(1), 8.124(b)(1)(B)
[appendix must contain all items “necessary for proper
consideration of the issues”].)
B. LeMoyne’s Arguments
Turning to the merits, LeMoyne contends insufficient
evidence supported the finding that he knowingly transmitted
HSV-1 to Bueno, as no medical evidence was offered to prove she
was infected. We disagree. Bueno testified that the parties
became intimate beginning in February 2023, and she had no
other sexual partners at the time. LeMoyne admitted that he
3
contracted HSV-1 before March 2023 but did not disclose his
condition until after Bueno informed him of her diagnosis.2
Bueno experienced her first HSV-1 outbreak in late April 2023,
and when she went to urgent care for medical attention, blood
and culture tests indicated she had the virus. This evidence
permitted the reasonable inference that LeMoyne knew he was
carrying HSV-1, hid this fact from Bueno, and infected her.
LeMoyne’s mootness argument rests on his contention that
a DVRO may issue to “prevent a recurrence of abuse” (boldface
omitted), but in this case, the DVRO “cannot prevent the
recurrence of the transmission of an STD with which [Bueno] has
already been diagnosed.” This argument is forfeited, as LeMoyne
did not raise it in the family court. (Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227
Cal.App.4th 774, 785.)
Even if not forfeited, the argument is unpersuasive. The
DVPA authorizes a court to issue an order to restrain any person
for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence and abuse
upon “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§§ 6300,
subd. (a), 6220.) “‘[A]buse’” may be behavior that “could be
enjoined pursuant to Section 6320” (§ 6203, subd. (a)(4)), and
such behavior includes “battering” and “disturbing the peace of
the other party.” (§ 6320, subd. (a).) “‘[D]isturbing the peace of
the other party’ refers to conduct that, based on the totality of the
circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the
other party.” (§ 6320, subd. (c).)
2 LeMoyne does not mention this admission in his appellate brief,
incorrectly arguing that the “only” evidence concerning Bueno’s
infection was her own testimony. Failure to acknowledge this evidence
also forfeits LeMoyne’s substantial evidence challenge. (Kim v. TWA
Construction, Inc. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 808, 838.)
4
LeMoyne’s knowing transmission of HSV-1 to Bueno was a
past act of “battering” that disturbed her peace. (See Behr v.
Redmond (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 517, 525 [a person who knows
he has herpes and fails to disclose that fact may be liable for
transmitting the disease to a sexual partner on a theory of
battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress].) The
family court was within its discretion to grant Bueno’s petition.
LeMoyne’s mootness argument does not persuade us otherwise,
as the DVPA does not require a petitioner seeking a DVRO to
show a probability of future abuse. (R.R. v. C.R. (2026) 117
Cal.App.5th 1262, 1275.)
DISPOSITION
The DVRO is affirmed. Bueno shall recover her costs on
appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MORI, J.
We concur:
ZUKIN, P. J.
TAMZARIAN, J.
5