Winzer

Winzer v. Johnson CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 2, 2024F087031California4,106 words

Opinion

Opinion

Santos, J.

Filed 8/2/24 Winzer v. Johnson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SHINIQUE NYCOLE WINZER,

F087031

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CV-03211) v.

KIMECA PARHAM JOHNSON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. Kimeca Parham Johnson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- In this suit for a civil harassment restraining order (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6),1 Kimeca Parham Johnson (Johnson) appeals from a one-year restraining order issued in favor of Shinique Nycole Winzer (Winzer).2 The appeal proceeds on the clerk’s

Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.