What is the test for a restraining order against Ayinde in his personal injury case?

injunctive relief for victims of harassment, the party to be enjoined has certain important due process safeguards," including " 'a full opportunity to present his . . . case.' " (Adler v. Vaicius (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1770, 1775; quoting Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners' Assn. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719, 730.) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unlawful harassment exists, it must issue an order prohibiting the harassment. ( 527.6, subd. (i).)

We review the court's decision to issue a restraining order for abuse of discretion, and any factual findings supporting the restraining order for substantial evidence. " 'We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of respondent, . . . , and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of upholding the trial court's findings.' " (Parisi v. Mazzaferro (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1226.)

Ayinde challenges the restraining order on two grounds. First, he claims the court denied him due process by preventing him from presenting evidence and cross-examining K.-P. We disagree. The court heard testimony and argument from Ayinde and permitted him to cross-examine one of the witnesses. The court invited him to cross-examine another witness, but he declined to do so. Ayinde points to nothing in the record indicating that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine K.-P., nor does he identify evidence he was precluded from presenting or explain how the result would have been different had he presented that evidence. (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [party has duty to identify factual and legal support for positions].)

The court did not, as Ayinde claims, adopt an "adversarial posture toward the defense." Section 527.6 authorizes the court to "make an independent inquiry," and the court did just that by asking clarifying questions. ( 527.6, subd. (i).) Moreover, the trial court is "not a mere passive spectator . . . . 'Within reasonable limits, it is not only the right but the duty of a trial judge to clearly bring out the facts so that the important functions of his office may be fairly and justly performed.' " (Gantner v. Gantner (1952)

Page 4