King v. Fraser CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 4/9/26 King v. Fraser CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

MARY KING,

E083544 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. CIVMB2400029) v. OPINION NORA MARIE FRASER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John W. Burdick,

Temporary Judge. Affirmed.

Pensanti & Associates and Louisa Pensanti for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

In 2024, the trial court issued a “civil harassment restraining order after hearing”

against defendant and appellant Nora Fraser in favor of plaintiff and respondent Mary

King. Defendant appeals from the order. We conclude that defendant has forfeited her

1 claims of error by failing to direct any argument toward an identified standard of review

and further conclude that, even in the absence of forfeiture, defendant cannot meet her

burden to show error on appeal because she has failed to present a record sufficient for us

to review the merits of her claim. As such, we affirm the order.

II. DISCUSSION

Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 provides “ ‘expedited injunctive relief to

victims of harassment.’ ” (E.G. v. M.L. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 688, 698.) Under the

statute, “ ‘ “harassment” ’ ” is generally defined as “ ‘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.’ ” (Ibid.) If the trial court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that harassment exists, it may issue an order prohibiting the

harassment. (Ibid.) Generally, “[w]e review the trial court’s decision to grant the

restraining order for ‘ “whether the findings (express and implied) that support the trial

court’s entry of the restraining order are justified by substantial evidence . . . .” ’ ” (Id. at

pp. 698-699.)

However, “ ‘the most fundamental rule of appellate law is that the judgment [or

order] challenged on appeal is presumed correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to

affirmatively demonstrate error.’ ” (People v. Foss (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 113, 126.)

To meet this burden, “ ‘ “[a]rguments should be tailored according to the applicable

standard of appellate review,” ’ ” and “ ‘[f]ailure to acknowledge the proper scope of

review is a concession of a lack of merit.’ ” (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (2017)

13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948, quoting Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE

2 Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465.) Thus, an appellate court may deem

arguments forfeited where an appellant fails to tailor her arguments and ignores the

appropriate standard of review. (Symons Emergency Specialties v. City of Riverside

(2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 583, 597-598.) Here, defendant’s appellate brief merely argues

that the trial court should have reached a different decision. In doing so, defendant does

not identify any standard of review and does not attempt to explain why reversal is

required under the applicable substantial evidence standard of review. We construe the

failure to identify or tailor any arguments to any appellate standard of review as a

concession of lack of merit and deem defendant’s claim of error forfeited.

Even in the absence of forfeiture, “ ‘ “if the record is inadequate for meaningful

review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.” ’ ”

(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.) “ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record

on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [the appellant.]’ ” (Ibid.) In this

case, defendant seeks to challenge the grant of a civil harassment restraining order.

However, she failed to include any of plaintiff’s written submissions to the trial court as

part of the record on appeal. Thus, this court does not have a copy of the petition seeking

a restraining order or any declarations or documentary evidence that may have been

presented to the trial court in support of that petition. Additionally, defendant

acknowledges that the trial court received live testimony at a hearing. Yet, defendant has

not provided any record of oral proceedings of that hearing as part of the appellate

3 record.1 Absent a record of the live testimony and documents presented to the trial court

in support of the request for restraining order, the appellate record is patently inadequate

to review any claim of error under the applicable substantial evidence standard of review.

Thus, even in the absence of forfeiture, we would conclude that defendant has failed to

present an adequate record to establish error, and we affirm the order.

IV. DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Respondent to recover her costs on appeal.2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS Acting P. J. We concur:

MENETREZ J.

LEE J.

1 We observe that appellate counsel requested an extension of time to file the opening brief in this appeal specifically for the purpose of obtaining a record of oral proceedings to submit for our consideration. Despite being granted the requested extension, appellant filed her opening brief without augmenting the appellate record to include a record of oral proceedings as provided in the California Rules of Court.

2 Respondent has not filed a brief in this appeal. As such, we determine only that respondent is the prevailing party entitled to costs pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a). We express no opinion regarding whether the trial court should award any costs as reasonable upon the filing of a verified memorandum pursuant to rule 8.278(c).