Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Armen Asadoorian and Haykaz Gharibyan are next-door neighbors in Los Angeles County. Asadoorian had lived in his home for 25 years when Gharibyan rented the back house of the neighboring property. After Asadoorian called police about Gharibyan's loud music, Asadoorian testified that Gharibyan began harassing him, threatening to kill him and to rape his daughter and wife. Police arrested Gharibyan for being drunk in public after he confronted Asadoorian in front of officers while intoxicated. Even after Asadoorian served a temporary restraining order, Gharibyan allegedly continued blasting music all night and making threats, forcing Asadoorian or his wife to leave work to ensure their daughter could safely enter their property.
At the September 19, 2025 hearing on Asadoorian's petition for a civil harassment restraining order, Gharibyan appeared with a certified Armenian-language interpreter and confirmed he was ready to proceed. He disputed the allegations, claiming police found no noise when they responded to complaints and that he had only played loud music once. The trial court reviewed translated transcripts of video footage Asadoorian brought, which contained crude statements attributed to Gharibyan. When confronted, Gharibyan admitted he had "cussed different things" but denied specific statements. He asked for 15 minutes to retrieve videos from his car, but the court declined to pause the proceedings while allowing him to describe what the videos would show.
The trial court found Asadoorian credible and Gharibyan not particularly credible, concluding that Gharibyan was playing loud music incessantly and causing neighbors to repeatedly call police. The court issued a one-year civil harassment restraining order protecting Asadoorian, his wife, and his daughter from September 19, 2025 until September 19, 2026. Gharibyan appealed, but the restraining order expired during the pendency of the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal first addressed mootness, acknowledging that the restraining order's expiration rendered the appeal moot because the court could no longer grant effective relief. However, exercising its inherent discretion, the court reached the merits because the controversy could recur if Asadoorian moved to renew the restraining order.
On the merits, the court held that Gharibyan, though self-represented, was bound by the same appellate rules as represented parties. His opening brief contained no citations to the record or legal authorities beyond general references to constitutional due process. The court found he forfeited all six of his arguments—including claims of denied due process, judicial bias, improperly limited evidence, false accusations, interference with property rights, and courtroom intimidation—by failing to support them with reasoned argument, record citations, or legal authority as required by California Rules of Court rule 8.204 and established precedent.
Even absent forfeiture, the court concluded it would find no reversible error. Reviewing the restraining order for substantial evidence and deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations, the court found Asadoorian's testimony and exhibits sufficient to support the findings. The court also found no evidence of due process violations or judicial bias, noting the trial court asked Gharibyan if he was ready to proceed and gave him an equal opportunity to present his account. The court affirmed the September 19, 2025 order and directed that the parties bear their own costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Self-represented appellants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys and must support their arguments with citations to the record and legal authority or risk forfeiting those arguments on appeal.
- An appeal from an expired restraining order is technically moot, but appellate courts retain discretion to reach the merits when the controversy is capable of recurrence between the parties.
- Trial court credibility determinations receive substantial deference on appeal, and appellate courts will not reweigh conflicting testimony about harassment allegations.
- A trial court does not deny due process by declining to continue a hearing when the party confirmed readiness to proceed and was given an opportunity to describe the evidence he wished to present.
- Failing to set forth all material evidence in the opening brief, rather than cherry-picking favorable evidence, waives any claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces the stringent appellate forfeiture rules that apply equally to self-represented litigants in California. The court's willingness to reach the merits despite mootness demonstrates that appellate courts may exercise discretion to resolve recurring disputes, particularly in the restraining order context where renewal is possible. The decision also illustrates the heavy burden appellants face in challenging credibility-based findings, as appellate courts defer to trial courts' assessments of witness believability.
The case serves as a practical reminder that procedural compliance matters as much as substantive arguments on appeal. Even potentially meritorious claims of due process violations or judicial bias will be deemed forfeited without proper record citations and legal authority. For trial courts, the decision affirms that denying continuances and proceeding with hearings when parties confirm readiness does not violate due process, particularly when the court provides alternative means for parties to present their positions.