Flores v. Linares CA2/3


Filed 1/5/21 Flores v. Linares CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE ALMA MARIA FLORES, B298528 Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STRO02002 v. GUADALUPE LINARES, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alexander C.D. Giza, Judge. Affirmed. Donald A. Hilland for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ Alma Maria Flores appeals from the trial court’s order denying her request for a civil harassment restraining order against her landlord, Guadalupe Linares.1 We affirm. BACKGROUND2 On March 27, 2019, Flores filed a form request for a civil harassment restraining order against Linares under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 (section 527.6).3 She asserted Linares has harassed her, her husband, and her three children daily since March 1, 2019. Flores’s application included her declaration, dated March 12, 2019. At the time, Flores and her family lived in a duplex they had been renting from Linares for the past three years.4 They usually paid their rent in cash. Flores declared that their roof had been leaking severely for months, but Linares and her son refused to repair it and would not let the family repair it themselves. Flores filed a formal code enforcement complaint with the City of Los Angeles in late February 2019. 1 Linares did not file a respondent’s brief, so we “decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) 2 “We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment.” (Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405 (Brekke).) 3 On March 12, 2019, Flores apparently asked the court to enter a temporary restraining order until the scheduled April 17, 2019 hearing. That request was denied because the facts in Flores’s application did not sufficiently show harassment, as defined by section 527.6, had occurred. 4 Linares and her son apparently lived in a separate part of the duplex. 2 Flores stated that, after she complained to the City, Linares threatened to call ICE—Immigration and Customs Enforcement—if her family did not leave. Flores said that on March 9, 2019, Linares offered to pay her $3,000 if the family would leave by the next day. She also declared Linares’s son threatens the family daily and that her children are scared. She stated, “We have nowhere to go if [Linares] makes us leave[,] and she keeps threatening us with ICE and with physical force.” Linares filed a response and supporting declaration dated April 12, 2019, denying she threatened Flores or her family. Linares asserted the leaking roof was due to ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals