Bobkoff v. Dewey CA2/6 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/14/24 Bobkoff v. Dewey CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
JOHN BOBKOFF, 2d Civ. No. B327917
(Super. Ct. No. 23CV00256)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
LAURA DEWEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
WILLIAM CROPLEY, 2d Civ. No. B327919
(Super. Ct. No. 23CV00254)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
LAURA DEWEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
DENNIS BERGER, 2d Civ. No. B327944
(Super. Ct. No. 23CV00264)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
LAURA DEWEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
JUDITH HUGHES, 2d Civ. No. B328595
(Super. Ct. No. 23CV00251)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
LAURA DEWEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
Laura G. Dewey (appellant) appeals from the judgment
after the trial court granted the requests of John J. Bobkoff,
William D. Cropley III, Dennis L. Berger, and Judith Hughes for
restraining orders pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent
Adult Civil Protection Act (Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 15600 et
seq.) We will affirm.
1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant and respondents live at the Friendship Manor
retirement community in Goleta. They range in age from 67 to
86. Residents of Friendship Manor live in separate rooms but eat
and socialize in the facility’s dining room and common areas.
Respondents requested restraining orders in January of
2023. Their declarations described appellant abusing them
verbally and physically by, among other things: trying to ram
them with her mobility scooter; waiving her cane at them; falsely
accusing them of battery and theft; calling them obscene names
and racial epithets; filming them with her cell phone without
permission; and using her professional training to intimidate
them by saying things like “go ahead and sue me I’m a lawyer.”
They also describe being frightened by her acts toward others,
such as using her cane to knock down bicyclists and to strike the
cars of those stopping to pick up family members in front of
Friendship Manor.
The trial court heard evidence over two days in February of
2023. It admitted the parties’ supporting and responsive
declarations subject to cross-examination of the declarants. It
declined to admit declarations of those who were not present in
court. Each respondent testified in a narrative manner and
answered questions on cross-examination by appellant.
Friendship Manor’s food service manager, a dining room
employee, and three residents testified about incidents they
witnessed in the dining room. Appellant then testified and also
answered questions on cross-examination from each respondent.
The trial court granted respondents’ requests and issued
three-year restraining orders against appellant. It found
respondents’ testimony “very credible” and described their
3
evidence of abuse and emotional harm as “preponderating;
indeed, it was even, clear, and convincing.” It described
appellant’s testimony as follows: “She was not credible; her
testimony was not persuasive; it was argumentative; combative;
the Court can see where the Persons Seeking Protection were
intimidated; harassed; abused.” The court found “[t]he evidence
against [appellant] was overwhelming; it was very persuasive;
very credible; believable.”
We consolidated the appeals of each restraining order for
argument and decision.
DISCUSSION
We review protective orders issued under the Act for abuse
of discretion and factual findings supporting the order for
substantial evidence. (Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th
1131, 1137.) “[W]e will only find an abuse of discretion when the
trial court exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards the
uncontradicted evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1140.) We resolve all
conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prevailing party and
construe all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of
upholding the trial court’s findings. (Id. at pp. 1137-1138.)
Evidentiary Contentions
Appellant contends the trial court erred by allowing
respondents to testify in a narrative manner and by admitting
extensive hearsay evidence. She did not raise the former issue
below. The argument is forfeited. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).)
Even if it were not, appellant cannot demonstrate prejudice. She
testified in the narrative as well. The court tolerated appellant’s
own forays into hearsay and ruled promptly on her oral
objections. We presume the court considered only relevant and
admissible evidence. (Id., § 664.)
4
Elder Abuse Act Contentions
Appellant cites the Act’s preamble sections as showing the
Legislature intended it to protect the safety of elders, not “to
resolve disputes between neighbors who happen to be elderly.”
(§§ 15600, 15601.) We disagree. Nothing in the Act prohibits
trial courts from issuing protective orders against elderly or
dependent adults who violate its provisions.
Elder abuse includes “[p]hysical abuse, neglect,
abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with
resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering.”
(§ 15610.07, subd. (a)(1).) “‘Mental suffering’ means fear,
agitation, confusion, severe depression, or other forms of serious
emotional distress that is brought about by forms of intimidating
behavior, threats, harassment, or by deceptive acts performed or
false or misleading statements made with malicious intent to
agitate, confuse, frighten, or cause severe depression or serious
emotional distress of the elder or dependent adult.” (§ 15610.53.)
Courts may issue an order to restrain “any person” it finds
abused the petitioning party. (§ 15657.03, subd. (c).)
Here, appellant and respondents supplemented their
declarations with more than eight hours of live testimony about
the events at Friendship Manor. Their accounts conflicted, often
fundamentally. The trial court’s conclusion that each respondent
had “clearly . . . been emotionally harmed by the actions of
[appellant]” was based on its weighing of this evidence. “[T]he
trial court was in the best position to evaluate credibility and to
resolve factual disputes, and our review of the record reveals
sufficient evidence to conclude that the court’s order was not an
abuse of discretion.” (In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney
(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1426-1427.)
5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their
costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
6
Thomas P. Anderle, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Laura G. Dewey, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearances for Plaintiffs and Respondents.