Filed 9/2/20 Ortega v. Gonzalez CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN EMERITA MARILU B297853 CHINCHILLA ORTEGA, (Los Angeles County Super. Plaintiff and Respondent, Ct. No. 18CHRO01985) v. AIROL RICARDO MUNOZ GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Thomas Trent Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. Airol Ricardo Munoz Munoz, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Emerita Marilu Chinchilla Ortega, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________ The trial court granted Emerita Marilu Chinchilla Ortega’s request for a restraining order against Airol Ricardo Munoz 1 Gonzalez (Munoz) pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention 2 Act, Family Code section 6200 et seq. (DVPA). On appeal Munoz contends the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order On November 26, 2018 Ortega, representing herself, filed a form request for a restraining order under the DVPA against Munoz, whom she identified as someone she used to date and the 3 father of her then-16-year-old daughter. Although Ortega resided in California, Munoz lived in Florida. On the DVPA form Ortega indicated she and Munoz had been involved in another court case filed that same year concerning child support. Ortega checked boxes on the form requesting personal conduct orders against Munoz, as well as a stay-away order requiring him to stay at least 100 yards away from Ortega and from various places including her home and vehicle. Specifically, with regard to the personal conduct orders, she checked box 6(a), which requested the court order Munoz to refrain from certain actions against her, 1 Documents in the record and appellate briefing show Airol Ricardo Munoz Gonzalez is also sometimes referred to as Airol Munoz. 2 Statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated. 3 Ortega and Munoz’s daughter turned 18 years of age while this appeal has been pending. 2 including that he not “[h]arass, attack, strike, threaten, . . . [or] disturb the peace.” She also checked box 6(b), which would bar Munoz from contacting her directly or indirectly. Ortega’s papers filed in support of her request, which incorporated a declaration under penalty of perjury that the information she provided was true and correct, included an attached statement providing additional details. In that attachment Ortega stated Munoz had called her twice on her personal cell phone on July 13, 2018 but she did not answer the first call because, pursuant to a court order, they were only to communicate regarding their daughter through messages using 4 Talking Parents. Concerned there was an emergency involving her daughter, Ortega ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals