Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Brigitte Bonomi and Carmen and Louis Lake had children in the same elementary school class in Poway. After more than a year of unremarkable interactions, the Lakes began e-mailing Bonomi in December 2024 accusing her of pursuing Louis. On December 20, 2024, Carmen confronted Bonomi outside the school, yelling, cursing, and calling her a 'divorce bitch.' Between January and March 2025, Bonomi received multiple calls and voicemails from the Lakes, including 'Imma fuck you up when I see you' and 'I'm going to beat the dog shit out of you,' and references to her maiden name and hometown that she had not shared with them.
On March 26, 2025, Bonomi filed separate petitions for civil harassment restraining orders (CHROs) against each Lake under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, and the court issued temporary CHROs the same day. The Lakes filed their own CHRO requests against Bonomi, which the court denied. After disputes over service and continuances, the court held an evidentiary hearing on May 19 and 20, 2025, admitted call logs, screenshots, and 11 voicemail recordings, and granted Bonomi's CHROs against each Lake while denying the Lakes' requests. The Lakes appealed, and the Court of Appeal docketed the four appeals together.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders of May 20, 2025. On sufficiency of the evidence, the Lakes forfeited the claim by failing to furnish the appellate record with the exhibits admitted at the hearing, including the recorded voicemails and their transcripts, which were critical to the harassment finding. Even if preserved, substantial evidence supported harassment on two theories: Carmen's credible threats of violence, and both Lakes' knowing and willful course of harassing e-mails, calls, and voicemails that caused Bonomi substantial emotional distress.
The court rejected the remaining contentions. Proofs of personal service signed under penalty of perjury by a registered process server created a rebuttable presumption of proper service, and the Lakes waived any service defect by making a general appearance when they sought to terminate the temporary CHROs on grounds beyond personal jurisdiction. The ADA continuance request was properly denied as untimely under California Rules of Court, rule 1.100(c)(3). The voicemail recordings were not inadmissible under Penal Code section 632 because callers who leave messages reasonably expect to be recorded and thereby consent. Finally, the trial court heard offers of proof from Carmen as to each proffered witness before excluding those who did not witness the alleged harassment, so no due process violation occurred.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants challenging sufficiency of the evidence must furnish an adequate appellate record, including the exhibits and transcripts critical to the findings; failure to do so forfeits the claim.
- A proof of personal service signed under penalty of perjury by a registered process server creates a rebuttable presumption of valid service.
- Seeking relief on grounds other than personal jurisdiction, such as moving to terminate a restraining order on the merits, constitutes a general appearance that waives service defects.
- ADA accommodation requests must be made as far in advance as possible and at least five court days before the requested date; untimely requests may be denied without abuse of discretion.
- Voicemail recordings are not confidential communications under Penal Code section 632 because leaving a message constitutes consent to recording.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that parties cannot challenge the sufficiency of evidence without providing the exhibits and transcripts needed for review, and that general appearances waive service defects even in restraining order proceedings. It also confirms that voicemail recordings fall outside Penal Code section 632's protections because leaving a message is consent to recording, a practical rule for harassment cases built on recorded threats and abusive messages.