Windglows v. Morgan

Filed 1/22/09 Windglows v. Morgan CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

Celeste Ann Morgan appeals from an injunction that prohibits her from harassing Janhett Taylor Windglows. (Code Civ. Proc., 527.6 (section 527.6).) She contends (1) her right to due process was violated because the court failed to "maintain and receive" her legal documents and did not permit her to make a telephonic appearance at the injunction hearing, (2) venue was improper because neither party resided in California, and (3) Windglows failed to establish that Morgan's conduct met the "reasonable fear" standard in section 527.6. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Janhett Taylor Windglows sought an injunction against defendant Celeste Ann Morgan. Windglows submitted declarations stating Morgan was harassing Windglows and her boyfriend, Morgan's ex-husband, by stalking them, damaging their property, defaming them on the internet and interfering with their business. Morgan filed an answer in which she agreed to all personal conduct, stay away and other orders requested by Windglows. In the accompanying declaration she denied that she engaged in any acts of harassment. She filed a request for telephonic appearance for a hearing scheduled for February 20, 2008.

The record shows the hearing was continued to March 12, 2008. Windglows filed a request for telephonic appearance for that hearing. After the hearing, the court granted the injunction.

Morgan filed a timely notice of appeal and an appellant's opening brief. Windglows did not file a respondent's brief. The notices sent by this court were returned as being undeliverable to the address provided by Windglows on the documents she filed in the trial court.[1]

DISCUSSION

Morgan Has Provided an Insufficient Record to Support Her Arguments

Morgan argues that (1) her right to due process was violated because the court failed to "maintain and receive" her legal documents and failed to permit her to make a telephonic appearance at the injunction hearing, (2) venue was improper because neither party resided in California, and (3) Windglows failed to establish that Morgan's conduct met the "reasonable fear" standard in section 527.6.

Morgan failed to provide a reporter's transcript. Because we have no record of the injunction hearing, we must conclusively presume that the evidence presented by Windglows was sufficient to support the trial court's findings and orders. (Diamond View Limited v. Herz (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 612, 616, fn. 2.) The court's minute order states: "The Court finds that notice was given as required by law." This finding disposes of Morgan's due process argument. Because we must presume that the evidence supports all findings made by the court, Morgan's substantial evidence argument fails as well.

The argument that the Ventura Superior Court was not the proper "venue" in which to bring this action was not raised in the trial court and is waived. (People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1097.)

The order is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

COFFEE, J.

Kevin Denoce, Commissioner

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Celeste Ann Morgan, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] As no respondent's brief was filed, we examine appellant's brief and the record for prejudicial error. (Yordamlis v. Zolin (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 655, 659.)