Shoemaker v. Gianopoulos
Defendant John Gianopoulos, in propria persona, appeals from a Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 civil harassment restraining order issued upon the petition of Becky Shoemaker, which prohibits him from harassing Ms. Shoemaker for a period of three years. Much of Mr. Gianopoulos's opening brief is devoid of any record references.[1] The most we can derive from the brief is that he attacks the credibility of Ms. Shoemaker and others, as it pertains to a medical malpractice lawsuit (hereafter the underlying lawsuit) that he filed against Radiology Medical Group (RMG) at some point in time; in addition he attacks the factual assertions that Ms. Shoemaker made in her request for a restraining order and her testimony at the hearing on her request for a restraining order. We point out that it is for the trial court to determine credibility. (ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1266.) Credibility is an issue for the fact finder, and as such, we do not reweigh evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. (Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 915.) "Conflicts in the evidence, conflicting interpretations thereof and conflicting inferences which reasonably may be drawn therefrom, present issues of fact for determination by the trier of fact who 'is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses'. . . ." (Church of Merciful Saviour v. Volunteers of America, Inc. (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 851, 856–857.) Our task is merely to determine whether the judgment in this case is supported by substantial evidence (Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1137–1138), whether the facts are legally sufficient to constitute civil harassment under section 527.6,[2] and whether the restraining order passes constitutional muster. (DVD Copy Control Ass'n v. Bunner (2003) 31 Cal.4th 864, 890.)
Background
Comments on Shoemaker v. Gianopoulos