Romero v. Chen CA2/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 9/20/24 Romero v. Chen CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
JESSICA ZORAIDA ROMERO, B333475
Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 23WHRO01693)
v.
ZAO CHEN,
Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Melissa C. Lyons, Judge. Affirmed.
Zao Chen, in pro. per., for Appellant.
Jessica Zoraida Romero, in pro. per., for Respondent.
____________________________
We decide the matter by memorandum disposition. (Cal.
Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
Zao Chen appeals from a five-year civil harassment
restraining order barring, inter alia, contact with or proximity to
respondent Jessica Zoraida Romero as well as Romero’s parents
and siblings. The appellate record does not contain Romero’s
petition or a reporter’s transcript of the hearing on the petition.
The restraining order itself, however, indicates Chen personally
attended the hearing.
The bulk of Chen’s opening brief consists of the statement
of facts, in which Chen, who identifies herself as a transgender
woman with mental health issues including autism and ADHD,
claims to have had a tumultuous romantic relationship with
Romero. As for legal argument, Chen claims the trial court
allowed the case only 10-20 minutes and did not give her
sufficient time to present her case. She further claims the
evidence was insufficient to support the restraining order, and
Romero’s testimony was exaggerated and lacked proper context.
Romero in her respondent’s brief asserts she was Chen’s
case manager, assisting in providing Chen with social services
and housing, and the relationship was strictly professional.
Romero sought the restraining order after Chen began harassing
her, including making threats against Romero and her family
and coming to Romero’s home.1
1 Romero claims she has continued to receive written
letters from Chen after the court issued the restraining order,
and asks us to “take the necessary actions to address this
matter.” Our review here is limited to the restraining order
itself, and not Chen’s purported conduct after the order issued.
2
To the extent Chen argues the trial court erred in believing
Romero’s evidence over Chen’s, under our standard of review we
cannot overturn the trial court’s credibility determinations or
weighing of evidence. (McPherson v. EF Intercultural
Foundation, Inc. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 243, 257 [court reviewing
for substantial evidence is bound by trial court’s credibility
determinations and may not reweigh evidence].)
Our review is constrained further by the limited record on
appeal. “It is appellant[’s] burden to provide an adequate record
on appeal. [Citation.] To the extent the record is inadequate, we
make all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment.”
(LA Investments, LLC v. Spix (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1048,
fn. 1.) Here, the record is not adequate to evaluate the trial
court’s ruling. Although there was a court reporter present at the
restraining order hearing, Chen has chosen to proceed on appeal
without a reporter’s transcript or other account of the
proceedings. Without that record, we do not know what evidence
was presented or what arguments were raised, nor can we
determine, as Chen contends, that the court did not provide her
adequate opportunity to make her case. We therefore must make
all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment, and presume
the court properly conducted the proceedings and the evidence
was sufficient to support the restraining order.
3
DISPOSITION
The restraining order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded
her costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BENDIX, Acting P. J.
We concur:
WEINGART, J.
KLINE, J.*
*Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First
Appellate District, Division Two, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4