Leite v. Lamas
Filed 8/23/06 Leite v. Lamas CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| TANIA MARIA LEITE, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. ERIK LAMAS, Defendant and Appellant, | A112441 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 086908) |
Erik Lamas appeals in pro. per. from the granting of a domestic violence restraining order under which he is to stay away from his former girlfriend, respondent Tania Maria Leite, and must attend an anger management class. Leite, the nominal respondent in this case, also appears in pro. per. She joins in Lamas's appeal from the restraining order and disavows the sworn statements she made to the trial court that Lamas physically, sexually, and emotionally abused her over a period of several months. Finding that Lamas fails to meet his burden of demonstrating error, we affirm the trial court's order.
I. BACKGROUND
Leite submitted a declaration to the trial court describing Lamas's alleged domestic abuse. The declaration was handwritten on Judicial Council Form DV-100, and was signed under penalty of perjury by Leite on October 14, 2005.
Leite's declaration recounted the following facts: â€
