Crow v.
Filed 11/19/13 Crow v. Sparks CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIVE
SHERYL CROW et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
PHILLIP GORDON SPARKS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B243458
(Los Angeles
County Super.
Ct.
Nos. SS022570 and SS022509)
APPEAL from
the orders of the Superior Court
of
County, James K. Hahn, Judge.
Affirmed.
Phillip
Gordon Sparks, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Greenberg
Traurig, Gregory A. Nylen and Nina D. Boyajian for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
______________________________
Plaintiffs and respondents Sheryl Crow and Harvey
Weinstein sought restraining orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6
Gordon Sparks from engaging in harassing conduct and requiring Sparks
to stay at least 300 yards away from them.
The trial court granted the requested orders after a hearing on August 14, 2012. Sparks
timely appealed.
title="">[2] Sparks
raises a number of contentions, none of which are supported by citations to the
record or to legal authority. Because
court’s orders, we affirm.
In April 2012, Sparks
began writing disturbing and harassing posts about Crow, including claims that
she had stolen $5.5 million from him, filmed him illegally, blacklisted him,
broke into his apartment, and tried to have him arrested.
On July 5, 2012, Sparks
sent an e-mail to several executives at The Weinstein Company again accusing
Crow of blacklisting him and illegally filming him, purportedly for a show
backed by The Weinstein Company. In the
e-mail, Sparks stated he saw
Weinstein shopping with his wife and daughter and was going to approach him to
discuss his grievances, but decided against it.
Sparks was homeless at the
time and saw Weinstein in an alley where the homeless urinate. Sparks claims that Weinstein looked at him
and said, “How do you like me taking your money, Phil?â€
On July 16, 2012, Sparks
sought assistance from the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), claiming Crow and Weinstein broke
into his apartment and stole $5.5 million from him. A SAG-AFTRA employee advised him that
SAG-AFTRA could not assist and he should hire outside counsel. Sparks,
frustrated that SAG-AFTRA would not assist him, said “I’ll just shoot themâ€
apparently referring to Crow and Weinstein.
On July 19, 2012, Sparks
wrote a long and rambling comment on Facebook for SAG-AFTRA, again accusing
Crow of illegally filming him and stealing $5.5 million from him. At the end of the post, Sparks
wrote: “This is nothing but a cover up
to ruin me by Sheryl Crow & Harvey Weinstein. But guess what: [¶] I ain’t
[sic] going nowhere . . . I am
staying here until I get what is mine.â€
Crow
filed a request for a restraining order on July 24, 2012, supported by declarations describing Sparks’s
harassing conduct and stating she did not know Sparks
but was concerned Sparks might harm
her, her family members, close friends, or employees. The trial court granted a temporary
restraining order to remain in effect until a hearing on August 14, 2012. Sparks
responded on August 7, 2012,
reiterating many of his claims against Crow and Weinstein. His response also stated that he
was filed on August 8, 2012,
supported by declarations substantially similar to Crow’s. The court granted a temporary restraining
order and consolidated the hearings on Crow’s and Weinstein’s requests on August 14, 2012.
At the hearing, counsel for Crow and
Weinstein called Dr. David Glazer, a psychiatrist who testified that he had met
and spoken to Sparks for about an hour and had reviewed the declarations
submitted with the request for restraining orders. Based on the declarations and his
conversation with Sparks, Dr.
Glazer concluded that Sparks
presented a clear and present danger to Crow and Weinstein. Sparks
cross-examined Dr. Glazer. During
cross-examination, Sparks claimed Dr. Glazer woke him up around 10:00 p.m on
the Venice boardwalk and only spoke with him for ten minutes. He asked Dr. Glazer whether the doctor and
Kevin Berman (who accompanied Dr. Glazer when he met with Sparks) worked for
Crow and the studios, and whether they were in violation of the temporary
restraining order when they approached him.
Sparks called Berman as a witness
and asked whether Berman had pretended to be an attorney and had agreed to take
Sparks’s case against Crow. Berman
testified that he did arrange a meeting with Sparks but never said he was an
attorney and never advised Sparks on a case against Crow. Berman was in fact a security expert for
Crow.
Sparks testified on his own behalf,
explaining that he had met Crow on the beach in 2004, and he planned to sue her
for $7.5 million and call David Arquette and Ugo, a Beverly Hills restaurateur,
as witnesses against Crow. He further claimed
that Ronni Chasen was brokering a deal with Crow and Weinstein to get his money
back and get him on a reality show to redeem himself, but then she was
murdered. During cross-examination, he
testified that Crow had approached him at 2:30 a.m. and told him, “I’m going to
kill you like we killed Ronni Chasen.â€
Before granting the orders, the trial
court said to Sparks: “I noticed in your
response, which I read very carefully as well as listened to you today, you
said that you basically agreed to the orders that are being requested by both Mr.
Weinstein and Ms. Crow.†Sparks
confirmed his agreement, stating: “I
totally agree that we should stay away from each other.†The court also asked Sparks whether he owned a
gun, and Sparks stated he has never owned a gun. Sparks stated he was concerned about Crow
stalking him. The court explained that
if Sparks sees Crow or Weinstein or any member of their staff or family, “your
responsibility is to just turn around and walk the other way. . . . If you do that, you won’t be in violation of
the restraining order.â€
A. Substantial Evidence Supports
the Orders
In his
timely appeal, Sparks challenges the restraining orders entered in favor of
Crow and Weinstein. Sparks contends
through various arguments that the trial court abused its discretion when it
granted the restraining orders based on insufficient evidence.
Section
527.6 is intended to provide expedited relief to victims of harassment and is
generally used when the victim has been stalked, threatened or otherwise
seriously harassed. (
1363, 1369.) To grant a restraining
order under section 527.6, a court must find by
unlawful harassment has taken place.
(§ 527.6, subd. (i).) The
statute defines harassment as “unlawful violence, a credible threat of
violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific
person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the per-son, and that serves
no legitimate purpose. The course of
conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial
emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to
the petitioner.†(Id., subd. (b)(3).)
We apply the
substantial evidence standard of review to orders granted under section
527.6. (Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 762.) “We resolve all factual conflicts and
questions of credibility in favor of the prevailing party and indulge in all
legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the finding of the trial court
if it is supported by substantial evidence which is reasonable, credible and of
solid value.†(Ibid.)
Here, the trial
court issued restraining orders prohibiting Sparks from engaging in a wide range
of harassing activities and from being within 300 yards of Crow, Weinstein, and
the employees and relatives listed in the orders. In doing so, the court considered the
declarations submitted, Sparks’s statement in response, and live testimony from
Sparks, Berman, and Dr. Glazer. The
declarations alone provided substantial evidence that Sparks engaged in a
course of harassing conduct that would cause a reasonable person to suffer
substantial emotional distress and did cause Crow and Weinstein to suffer such
distress. (§ 527.6.) Sparks posted meritless accusations against
both Crow and Weinstein, claims to have seen Weinstein with his family in Santa
Monica, and admits to having threatened to shoot both of them.
Sparks
contends that his civil rights were violated because he did not have the
opportunity to cross-examine his accusers.
Nothing requires a party seeking a restraining order to testify at the
hearing, subject to cross-examination.
Rather, “‘[b]oth sides may offer evidence by deposition, affidavit, or
oral testimony, and the court shall
receive such evidence, subject only to such reasonable limitations as are
necessary to conserve the expeditious nature of the [hearing].’ [Citations.]â€
(Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203
Cal.App.4th 717, 729, quoting Schraer v.
Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719, 733, fn. 6.)
Sparks also
challenges the veracity of statements made both in written declarations and
live testimony. We do not second-guess
the trial court’s conclusions about the credibility of witnesses or the
reasonable inferences the court draws from the evidence before it. (Johnson
v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 613,
622-623.)
Finally,
Sparks argues the trial court based its decision solely on the fact that he
agreed to the orders. Regardless of
whether he agreed to the orders or not, the court’s decision to grant
plaintiffs’ requests for restraining orders were supported by substantial
evidence.
B. Sparks Forfeited His Challenge to Dr.
Glazer’s Testimony
Sparks also
contends the trial court should have ignored the testimony of Dr. Glazer
because the doctor’s license was revoked and he failed to meet the federal
qualifications for expert testimony.
Sparks forfeited his ability to raise these issues on appeal because he failed
to raise them below. Generally, “‘“when
reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will
consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment
was entered.†[Citation.]’ . . . [Citation.]â€
(Duronslet v. Kamps, supra,
203 Cal.App.4th at p. 737.) “A party on
appeal cannot successfully complain because the trial court failed to do
something which it was not asked to do.
[Citation.]†(
(2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 976, 993.) The
record on appeal does not contain any objection by Sparks about Dr. Glazer’s
qualifications. Sparks’s contentions are
forfeited.
The orders
are affirmed. Costs on appeal are
awarded to Crow and Weinstein.
KRIEGLER, J.
We
concur:
MOSK, Acting P. J.
KUMAR, J.
references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless stated otherwise.
in case Nos. SS022509 (Crow v. Sparks)
and SS022570 (Weinstein v. Sparks),
which Sparks appealed in case Nos. B243458 and B243461, respectively. We granted Sparks’s motion to consolidate the
two appeals.
