Filed 4/27/23 Z.S. v. H.H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- Z.S., C094845, C094848 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 34-2020- 70008378-CU-HR-GDS, 34- v. 2021-70008678-CU-HR-GDS) H.H., Defendant and Appellant. S.S., C094846, C094847 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 34-2020- 70008379-CU-HR-GDS, 34- v. 2021-70008671-CU-HR-GDS) H.H., Defendant and Appellant. 1 Z.S. and S.S. obtained four civil harassment restraining orders against H.H. pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.1 H.H. appeals the issuance of all four orders,2 arguing (1) the trial court erred in denying her request for a statement of decision, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the issuance of the orders, (3) the orders constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and (4) she proved Z.S. and S.S. lied in another case and the trial court thus should have disregarded their testimony in this case. We disagree with all four arguments, and we thus affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Z.S. and S.S. are a married couple, and H.H. is a former friend of theirs. All three parties are originally from Iran, and currently live in Folsom. Following a hearing, Z.S. and S.S. obtained four separate civil harassment restraining orders against H.H., in four separate cases. Because we do not have a reporter’s transcript or an agreed or settled statement of the hearing, the facts below come entirely from the clerk’s transcript, which consists of the requests for civil harassment restraining orders and various documents filed in support of and opposition thereto, and the trial court’s orders and rulings thereon. December 2020 Requests for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders On December 4, 2020, Z.S. and S.S. filed separate (but seemingly identical) requests for civil harassment restraining orders against H.H.3 In support of the requests, they stated they had previously obtained temporary civil harassment restraining orders against the Rostami family, and they attached copies of those restraining orders to the current requests. They also stated: “Last night, we figured it out that [H.H.] has 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 We issued an order consolidating the cases for appellate purposes, but also ordering they would retain their respective case numbers. 3 Z.S. filed case No. 34-2020-70008378, and S.S. filed case No. 34-2020-70008379. 2 provoked Rostami family to threaten to kill us with gun and knife. . . . Last night Rostami family have broken restraining order principles for the third time, when police came here, Rostami family called to [H.H.] while police officer was on the other phone with cousin of Rostami for translation. We could hear [H.H.’s] voice that was on speaker and she was advising Rostami family to deny that he came to the window …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals