Filed 8/26/26 Starr-Walker v. Starr CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
ELESE STARR-WALKER, B347459
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24CMRO01575)
v.
RAQUALE STARR,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Adrian Gidaya Roxas, Judge. Affirmed.
Elese Starr-Walker, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Petitioner and appellant Elese Starr-Walker appeals from a
trial court order denying her request for a restraining order.
Starr-Walker has not provided a record adequate for appellate
review. She also has not demonstrated that the trial court erred.
We therefore must affirm the trial court order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
According to the case summary included in the record on
appeal, in September 2024, Starr-Walker filed a request for a
domestic violence restraining order, seeking to restrain Raquale
Starr. The case was at some point related to two other
restraining order requests: Elese Starr-Walker v. Darlene Starr-
Young-Johnson, and Elese Starr v. Eric Howard Starr. The
record includes no information about the two related matters,
beyond the case numbers and the parties’ names.1 Starr-
Walker’s appellate briefing indicates that Raquale Starr is her
sister-in-law, Eric Starr is her brother, and Darlene Starr-Young-
Johnson is her sister.
On January 14, 2025, the trial court conducted a hearing in
the Compton courthouse. Starr-Walker had subpoenaed security
camera footage from the Long Beach courthouse, and the court in
Compton had received a CD, presumably of the subpoenaed
footage. The court had not reviewed the video. The court advised
Starr-Walker that the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles
Superior Court had issued a general order regarding courthouse
security footage and Starr-Walker would have to comply with
1 This appeal concerns only Starr-Walker’s request for a
restraining order against Raquale Starr. Although Starr-
Walker’s appellate brief refers to all three matters, the notice of
appeal was limited to the matter involving Raquale Starr; the
other case numbers were crossed out.
2
that order to obtain and use the video footage she was seeking.
The court briefly explained the general order, including that “any
party can request a copy of the surveillance cameras of the Long
Beach courthouse, which is where this incident purportedly arose
from.” The court gave the parties copies of the January 2, 2025
general order and permitted them to review it in court so that
they might ask questions about what was required. The court
then continued the matter to allow Starr-Walker time to comply
with the order and obtain the video footage she was seeking.
Before concluding the hearing, the court again advised that
the general order outlined the requirements for obtaining
courthouse security footage. The court stated that it would not
accept hearsay at the eventual hearing and informed the parties:
“If either one of you has questions about what the discovery rules
are, what hearsay is, what type of witnesses are required to
testify, you can go to the self-help center of this courthouse or any
courthouse in the county. They have staff attorneys or volunteer
attorneys there who may be able to assist you.”
The court set a “discovery setting” hearing date of February
11, 2025. The record does not contain minute orders or a
reporter’s transcript from that hearing.
On April 9, 2025, Starr-Walker filed an ex parte application
seeking an order allowing the “Compton Courthouse to review
surveillance footage recorded on or about September 11, 2024, at
the Long Beach Courthouse.” In an accompanying declaration,
Starr-Walker indicated that a hearing had been set for April 16,
2025, and security video from the Long Beach courthouse was
essential to support her position. A subpoena for the video was
“issued and granted” in late December 2024. Starr-Walker
3
sought an order allowing the submission and consideration of the
evidence.
A copy of the subpoena was attached to the application. In
a supporting declaration, Starr-Walker asserted that “another
female” assaulted her on September 11, 2024, in the Long Beach
courthouse, and “Darlene” and “her witnesses” lied about Starr-
Walker being the aggressor. She claimed the video would “prove
all three [restraining order] cases” and would establish that
Starr-Walker did not touch Darlene.2
The record does not include the trial court’s ruling on the
ex parte application. The next document in the clerk’s transcript
is a minute order from the April 16, 2025 hearing. According to
the minute order, the court noted that the “presiding judge” in
Long Beach denied Starr-Walker’s ex parte application. The
court therefore did not view the video footage “as it was not
appropriately submitted.” The court deemed the January 2, 2025
general order regarding court security videos part of the minute
order and part of the record. After hearing testimony, reviewing
all other evidence, and allowing argument, the court concluded
Starr-Walker did not meet her burden of proof and denied the
restraining order request. There is no reporter’s transcript or
other recording or summary of the hearing.
2 Starr-Walker further explained: “I only hit the person who
assaulted me and I defended myself one time and then my
brother chased me out the court house, they were upset that they
lost the case and it was dismissed for elder abuse. [T]hey want to
keep getting that IHSS check so this is what she results to filing
a BOGUS Elder Abuse Case how dare you.” Although the
declaration did not identify the person who assaulted her, Starr-
Walker asserts that it was Raquale Starr in her opening brief on
appeal.
4
Starr-Walker timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
As we understand her brief on appeal, Starr-Walker argues
that the trial court erred by refusing to consider the security
camera footage. She asserts that, had the court reviewed the
video, the evidence would have supported her version of events
and demonstrated that other parties and witnesses lied at the
restraining order hearing.3
However, neither the brief nor the minimal record permits
us to evaluate Starr-Walker’s claim that the trial court erred. On
appeal, this court presumes that a trial court order is correct. It
is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate that the trial court
committed an error that requires us to reverse the challenged
order. This is true for all appellants, including those who
represent themselves. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th
1229, 1247 (Nwosu).) To satisfy that burden, the appellant must
give this court an adequate record. If the appellant does not
provide an adequate record, we must affirm the trial court order.
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609; In re Domestic
Partnership of Torres Campos & Munoz (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th
1112, 1126–1127.)
The record here is not adequate. We do not have the
restraining order request, any opposition, or any documents or
exhibits that were admitted at the restraining order hearing. We
do not have the ruling on Starr-Walker’s ex parte application.
We do not have a reporter’s transcript or settled statement
3 Although we discern these arguments, most of Starr-
Walker’s brief is a recitation of her version of the events of
September 11, 2024, and her allegations regarding her sister’s
improper motivations for seeking a restraining order against her.
5
regarding the April 16, 2025 hearing. (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010)
190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039 [without reporter’s transcript or
suitable substitute, court would presume the judgment is
correct].) As a result, while the minute order indicates the trial
court did not consider the security video because it was not
“appropriately submitted,” we do not know what arguments were
made to the court at the hearing, or any other explanation of the
court’s reasoning. (In re Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos
& Munoz (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1128 [“ ‘ “Failure to
provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be
resolved against appellant.” ’ ”].)
In addition, an appellant must support any arguments
made on appeal with reasoned legal argument and citations to
the record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a); Dilbert v. Newsom
(2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 317, 323; Nwosu, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1246.) Starr-Walker’s brief does not include any citations to
the record. She also does not explain why it was incorrect for the
trial court to exclude the security video. She does not argue or
demonstrate that she complied with the court’s general order
regarding courthouse security videos, or that she should not have
been required to follow the general order’s procedures. She does
not contend the court in Long Beach erred in rejecting her ex
parte application. Starr-Walker argues that had the video been
admitted, the court would have ruled in her favor, but she does
not explain why it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to
exclude the video.
Finally, even if an appellant shows that the trial court
erred by excluding evidence, this court will not reverse unless the
error is prejudicial. In other words, the appellant must show that
a different result would have been probable if the error had not
6
occurred. (Evid. Code, § 354; Code Civ. Proc., § 745; Zuniga v.
Alexandria Care Center LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 871, 888–
889.) Here, Starr-Walker makes this claim, but the inadequate
record prevents us from evaluating it. Without a transcript or
other summary of the evidence that was admitted at the hearing,
we cannot determine whether a different result would have been
probable if the security video had been admitted. Starr-Walker’s
mere assertion that this is true is insufficient.
Starr-Walker has not demonstrated that the trial court
erred. We therefore must affirm the court’s order.
7
DISPOSITION
The trial court order is affirmed. No costs are awarded as
respondent did not make an appearance in this appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
ADAMS, P. J.
We concur:
HANASONO, J.
DELGADO, J.*
* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
8