Mohamed v. Attia
| Decision Date | 27 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | D071407 |
| Parties | NORAM MOHAMED, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MOHAMED ATTIA, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Matthew Braner, Judge. Affirmed.
Mohamed Attia, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Noram Mohamed, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mohamed Attia (Attia) and Noram Mohamed (Mohamed) had been married for about four months when Mohamed sought a domestic violence restraining order preventing Attia from contacting her. (Fam. Code, § 6300.)1 Mohamed alleged bothphysical and verbal abuse, and sought a three-year order. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found Mohamed did not establish the claimed physical abuse. But the court found Mohamed met her burden to show Attia had verbally and emotionally abused her, and this abuse warranted a one-year protective order against Attia.
Attia challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order, and contends the court committed evidentiary errors. We reject Attia's contentions and affirm.
I. Factual Summary
Under well-settled appellate principles, we view the factual record in the light most favorable to the court's findings and order. (See Achene v. Pierce Joint Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 757, 761.)
Mohamed and Attia met in February 2016. Both are from Egypt. They were introduced by Mohamed's father. When they met, Attia was a United States citizen, and Mohamed was in the country on a temporary visitor's visa. According to Mohamed, Attia proposed marriage shortly after they met and did not want to delay the marriage. Mohamed testified she was initially reluctant because she was employed in Egypt and had many close family members there, but she soon agreed to the marriage.
Within three months of their first meeting, on May 1, Attia and Mohamed married and moved into Attia's home in Riverside. From the beginning the couplehad problems. Mohamed testified that Attia was abusive sexually. She said he called her names, and did not allow her to leave the house without him.
Less than two months after they married, Mohamed learned she was pregnant. On that day or the next day, when she did not want to have sex with him, Attia began yelling at Mohamed, scaring her. Mohamed testified Attia According to Mohamed, Attia said that if she "ever called the police, [she] should [also] call an ambulance."
Later that day or the next day, Attia apologized. Shortly after, on about July 3, Mohamed went to San Diego to stay with the couple's mutual friends, Tamar and his wife. Several days later, Attia persuaded Mohamed to take a trip with him to Catalina. Attia testified that during the trip, Mohamed was happy and the couple got along very well, and produced photographs to support this assertion. Mohamed testified that the trip was terrible for her because Attia insulted her throughout the trip.
After the trip, Mohamed asked for a divorce, but Attia did not agree. On July 17, Mohamed went back to stay with Tamar.
On about July 31, Attia and Mohamed went to a mediation led by two Muslim religious leaders in an attempt to resolve the couple's marital difficulties. During the three-hour mediation (also attended by their mutual friends Tamar and his wife), Attia told Mohamed she needed to come back home and live with him, and she refused. Mohamed testified that at the end of the meeting, Attia grabbed her arm in an aggressive manner. Attia denied doing so, and each of the other witnesses said they did not see this action.
Less than two weeks later, on August 11, 2016, Mohamed petitioned for a domestic violence restraining order. (§ 6300.) She supported the petition with her declaration stating that Attia had been physically and emotionally abusive throughout the marriage, and discussed various examples, including forcing her to have sexual relations, yelling at her, preventing her from leaving the home, and forcing her to hug him.
Attia opposed the petition, stating that Mohamed's "accusations are all untrue," and claimed Mohamed filed the petition "because she knows if there is a violent history with a spouse then immigration would help her and approve her green card."
In a supplemental declaration, Mohamed provided additional examples of emotional abuse, including specific derogatory names he had called her and stating that Attia raised "his hand as if he was going to strike me repeatedly." Mohamed reported that she has nightmares, is depressed, and "feel[s] trapped." She said she had"come to learn I am in a cycle of violence and abuse by this man and I need help to break it."
After several continuances, in October 2016 the court held a two-day evidentiary hearing. Both parties were represented by counsel.
At the hearing, Mohamed testified that Attia had engaged in the verbal and physical abuse summarized above. When asked why she was seeking a restraining order, Mohamed said that Attia told her many times that he is "vindictive" and that "with his power and money he can do anything." She said that based on his past actions, she is very scared of him.
Mohamed submitted a series of text messages between the parties, and they were admitted as exhibits at trial. Attia did not designate these documents as part of the appellate record, but the parties' testimony reflects the content of some of the texts. One of Mohamed's texts to Attia describes that Attia had accused her of being "a rotten scum bag" and "a whore." In his responsive texts, Attia apologized and said, "this is not for publicity, please" and "don't tell on me, please." Attia also later texted that " 'If I want to use my power no one, not your dad, will matter to me.' "
Mohamed also called two witnesses: (1) a Muslim religious leader who had known Attia for many years and who performed the couple's marriage ceremony (we shall refer to this witness as "Sheikh"); and (2) Mohamed's father. As detailed below, Attia objected to these witnesses on grounds that Mohamed had not provided prior written notice theywould be called at the hearing. (See § 217, subd. (c).) The court overruled this objection but stated it would permit substantial latitude during cross-examination.
In his testimony, Sheikh corroborated Mohamed's claim that Attia had pursued the marriage, and that Mohamed was initially reluctant to marry Attia. Sheikh also testified that after they married, Mohamed called him crying and complaining that Attia had been verbally abusive towards her. Sheikh made clear that he never saw, and Mohamed never told him about, any physical abuse committed by Attia.
Over Attia's counsel's objections (discussed below), the court allowed counsel to read a letter that Sheikh had written after Mohamed had filed the restraining-order petition. The letter was consistent with Sheikh's testimony that Mohamed had complained about Attia's verbal abuse, and provided additional details about this conduct. For example, Sheikh's letter stated that during the marriage, Mohamed came to his home, " 'crying and in total emotional damage.' " The letter also stated that Attia acknowledged "he [had] called [Mohamed] names and insulted her," but Attia had apologized and said he would not do that again. Mohamed later called Sheikh, crying and saying that Attia was "pressuring and harassing her and that she couldn't take it anymore."2
Mohamed's father, who lives in New York, testified very briefly. He said he first met Attia in 2014, and at that time Attia told him he would like to marry Mohamed, after Attia saw Mohamed's photograph. Two years later, in April 2016, Attia came to NewYork because he wanted to meet Mohamed for an arranged marriage. Mohamed's father testified that he is a United States citizen and applied several years ago for a permanent visa for Mohamed to live in this country.
Attia testified in his own defense. He strenuously denied he had engaged in any verbal or physical abuse against Mohamed. He said Mohamed's testimony was false and she had married him only to get a "green card" through a visa program for domestic violence victims. Attia said he is a well-respected businessman. He testified that he had not sought to get married, but Mohamed's father called him and asked him to meet his daughter. Attia said that shortly after they married, Mohamed acted in a strange manner (including cooking in the dark and placing heavy towels on the windows) and Mohamed raised numerous complaints about trivial matters, such as how he slept and how he walked.
Attia called an Imam and Islamic teacher as a supporting witness. This Imam conducted the July 31 mediation, and testified that he never saw Attia grab Mohamed's arm in an aggressive manner, and that he was in a position to have seen this conduct if it had occurred.
Attia also called Tamar, Attia's close friend for more than 20 years. On direct examination, Tamar testified that he was at the July 31 mediation and he did not see Attia aggressively grab Mohamed. On cross-examination, Tamar testified that Mohamed called...
To continue reading
Request your trial