Haro v. Rimes
Appellants Cathy A. Rimes and Margaret K. McFadden appeal from a restraining order entered on March 17, 2006, after the trial court granted Rick Haro and Rosemary Marquez a three-year restraining order to stop appellants from harassing them. Appellants also challenge the trial courts order denying their motion to quash Haros records subpoenas seeking documents reflecting Rimess history of harassing others.
All parties to this action have been in propria persona throughout the proceedings in this matter. Although Haro and Marquez (plaintiffs) participated in the lower court proceedings, they have not responded to appellants appeal. Because no respondents brief has been filed, under rule 8.220(a)(2) of the California Rules of Court (formerly rule 17(a)(2)), . . . the court will decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant. In applying this rule, we examine the record on the basis of appellants brief and . . . reverse only if prejudicial error is found. (Votaw Precision Tool Co. v. Air Canada (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 52, 55; accord, Carboni v. Arrospide (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 76, 80, fn. 2.)
Our review is further hampered because appellants, acting in propria persona, have not followed the rules and conventions of appellate procedure. Appellants have failed to provide any citations to the record and the clerks transcript and the record, as designated by appellants, is incomplete. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) (formerly rule 14(a)(1)(C)).) For instance, the record does not contain Haros underlying harassment petition. The burden of providing a record adequate to support an appeal is upon appellants. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.)
Nevertheless, to the extent we comprehend appellants contentions, Court hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants motion to quash and granting plaintiffs a restraining order against appellants. The restraining order is affirmed.
Comments on Haro v. Rimes