Parrilla v. Devalk CA4/2
E082525
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 15, 2025Background
- Thomas Parrilla, a law enforcement officer, sought a civil harassment restraining order against his neighbor, Mark Devalk, after a series of contentious encounters, including threats and intimidating conduct.
- The initial incident occurred on July 27, 2023, involving a verbal altercation in which Devalk allegedly used hostile language and made threats about knowing Parrilla's family and to "watch out."
- Parrilla described subsequent intimidating behavior by Devalk, including repeated staring at him and his family members in a menacing manner.
- Devalk denied being intoxicated, making threats, or being a gang member, and claimed that Parrilla was the aggressor.
- The trial court granted a two-year civil harassment restraining order in favor of Parrilla and his family, finding Parrilla's account more credible and determining there was a credible threat of future harm.
- Devalk appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the restraining order.
Issues
| Issue | Parrilla's Argument | Devalk's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for restraining order | Detailed specific incidents of threats and intimidation | Denied threats; claimed Parrilla was aggressive | Substantial evidence supported order by clear and convincing standard |
| Credibility of witnesses | Court should credit his account of events | Court should credit his and Valenzuela's account | Trial court's assessment of credibility upheld |
| Likelihood of future harassment | Devalk's ongoing conduct made future harm probable | No likely recurrence of harassment | Court implied harassment likely to recur |
| Adequacy of record on appeal | Responded to trial court's in-court questions, petition was summarized | Claimed trial court relied only on petition, not hearing evidence | Review based on hearing testimony sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Parisi v. Mazzaferro, 5 Cal.App.5th 1219 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing expedited injunctive relief under section 527.6 for harassment).
- Harris v. Stampolis, 248 Cal.App.4th 484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (defining standard for restraining orders and likelihood of recurring harassment).
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (presumption of correctness of trial court decisions on appeal).
- Sabbah v. Sabbah, 151 Cal.App.4th 818 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (testimony of a single witness suffices for clear and convincing evidence standard).