Tejeda v. Marky CA4/1, D083793

Amanda Tejeda and Louis Michael Marky are neighbors in the same apartment complex.
Tejeda sought a civil harassment restraining order against Marky for herself, her husband, and her daughter, alleging harassment including threats, brandishing a gun, surveillance, and stalking.
The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and later, after a hearing, issued a three-year civil harassment restraining order against Marky.
Marky, representing himself, filed an appeal contending the order was unsupported by evidence; he also submitted counter-declarations and police reports.
The appellate record lacked a reporter’s transcript or settled statement for the key hearing.
Tejeda did not file a respondent’s brief in the appellate proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restraining order was supported by clear and convincing evidence under Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6	Marky engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct causing substantial emotional distress	Allegations were untrue; no firearms owned; landlord declaration purportedly contradicted Tejeda	Trial court’s findings presumed correct; restraining order affirmed
Whether evidence review on appeal can overturn trial court’s credibility and factual determinations	Evidence, including testimony and other materials, met the legal standard	Appellate court should reweigh evidence submitted, including landlord and police reports	Appellate court will not reweigh evidence; record viewed in the light most favorable to prevailing party
Adequacy of the appellate record for meaningful review	N/A (No argument made by Tejeda on appeal)	Record is sufficient to show trial court error and warrant reversal	Appeal fails for lack of adequate record; affirmance required
Presumption of trial court correctness in the absence of a sufficient appellate record	N/A	Insufficient appellate record should not preclude relief	Insufficient record leads to presumption in favor of trial court, requiring affirmance

Schild v. Rubin, 232 Cal. App. 3d 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (defines elements of unlawful harassment under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6)
Harris v. Stampolis, 248 Cal. App. 4th 484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for restraining orders is substantial evidence)
Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal. 5th 989 (Cal. 2020) (appellate courts defer to the trial court’s assessment of evidence and witness credibility)
Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal. 5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (presumption of correctness and appellant’s burden to provide adequate record)
Ballard v. Uribe, 41 Cal. 3d 564 (Cal. 1986) (appellant must provide adequate record for appellate review)
Christie v. Kimball, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (deficient record hampers review and presumption favors trial court)
Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com., 214 Cal. App. 3d 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (decision should be affirmed if record is inadequate for review)
Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal. 4th 121 (Cal. 1999) (lack of record precludes meaningful appellate review and mandates affirmance)