Filed 3/19/18 Brown v. Wargo CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


LORA VIETTA BROWN,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KAREN WARGO,
Defendant and Appellant.

A151948

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. N17-0735)


Defendant Karen Wargo challenges a civil harassment restraining order issued against her, contending it is not supported by substantial evidence. Because she has not provided a sufficient record to enable our review of this claim, we must affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
On May 3, 2017, plaintiff Lora Vietta Brown petitioned the trial court for a civil harassment restraining order against Wargo. In support of her request, Brown alleged that Wargo, the girlfriend of Brown’s neighbor in Richmond, had “verbally attacked” Brown’s husband and other family members and threatened to have the family “kicked out” by their homeowners association. Brown also alleged that Wargo’s boyfriend had slashed Brown’s son’s tire. Finally, Brown claimed that her husband had caught Wargo recording them on her cell phone and that the police officer who responded advised Brown to seek a restraining order. A temporary restraining order issued.
Wargo filed an opposition to a permanent restraining order and included a detailed declaration and a copy of a report she made to the homeowners association. According to her, Brown’s husband had verbally attacked her after she suggested a truck should not be parked on the Browns’ lawn because the water lines might be damaged. Wargo, who was 64 years old, claimed Brown’s husband continued to verbally abuse her and her boyfriend, who was 81 years old and in poor health, to the point that her boyfriend left his home to stay with his daughter for an extended period of time. Wargo admitted she had recorded Brown’s husband threatening her, but she denied harassing Brown or her family.
A hearing was held on May 23, 2017. The minute order reflects that Brown’s husband, Wargo’s boyfriend, and four other witnesses testified, and that Wargo played “several recordings she made.” The hearing was not reported, and our record contains neither a transcript of the recordings nor the recordings themselves. There is no indication that the trial court considered any other evidence aside from that submitted with the moving papers. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued an order restraining Wargo for a period of one year from harassing, directly or indirectly contacting, or attempting to obtain the location of Brown, her husband, and her adult sons. The order also directed Wargo to stay at least 100 yards away from Brown, her family, her residence, and her vehicle.
II.
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure 527.6 allows a victim of harassment to obtain an order enjoining further harassment. The statute “was enacted ‘to protect the individual’s right to pursue safety, happiness[,] and privacy as guaranteed by the California Constitution.’ ” (Brekke v. Wills (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1412.) Section 527.6 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 person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (b)(3).) If a court “finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful harassment exists,” it must issue an injunction. (Id., § 527.6, subd. (i).)
In reviewing whether substantial evidence supports a civil harassment restraining order, “we review the evidence before the trial court in accordance with the customary rules of appellate review. 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.” (Schild v. Rubin (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 755, 762.) The substantial evidence standard governs our review despite the requirement below that clear and convincing evidence support the order. (See In re Marriage of Ruelas (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 339, 345.)
Wargo contends the restraining order must be reversed because of various claimed deficiencies in the allegations Brown made in her initial written request. In determining whether substantial evidence supports the order, however, we cannot ignore the evidence presented at the hearing. As the appellant, Wargo bears the “burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1271.) In particular, “[w]here no reporter’s transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters. To put it another way, it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error. [Citation.] The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992, italics omitted.) Because we do not know the content of the recordings and testimony presented at the hearing, we cannot conclude that the order lacks substantial evidence.
III.
DISPOSITION
The restraining order issued on May 23, 2017, is affirmed. Brown is awarded her costs, if any, on appeal.



_________________________
Humes, P.J.


We concur:


_________________________
Margulies, J.


_________________________
Banke, J.