NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MOSK, J.

INTRODUCTION

Respondent and appellant Douglas Blankenship and petitioner and respondent Yuki Mori were in a dating relationship. After Mori ended the relationship, Blankenship engaged in conduct that Mori believed was harassing. Mori filed a request for a protective order and the trial court granted the request. Blankenship appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On September 2, 2010, Mori filed a request for a domestic violence prevention order that requested, among other things, that Blankenship not harass or contact Mori, and that Blankenship stay at least 100 yards from Mori, her home, her workplace, and her vehicle. In support of the request, Mori submitted a declaration that stated the following facts:

Mori and Blankenship dated casually from January 2009 to December 2009. Mori ended her relationship with Blankenship in February 2010. From the end of March 2010 through June 2010, Blankenship called Mori six to nine times a day and tried to convince her to continue their relationship. Blankenship told Mori that she needed "professional help" because she was breaking up with a "great man" and did not realize what she was losing. About 1:00 p.m. on August 23, 2010, Blankenship called Mori and told her that he "went" to the hotel that was located across the street from Mori's condominium building and saw her driving away. When Mori returned home at 5:00 p.m., Blankenship was sitting in front of the hotel facing the entrance to Mori's building. Noticing Blankenship's presence, Mori parked a block from her building and sneaked in the building's back entrance. Every 15 minutes, Mori checked to see if Blankenship remained across the street. About 7:00 p.m., Mori observed that Blankenship had moved from the hotel's entrance to his car which was located south of Mori's building. Blankenship sat in his car until 8:00 p.m. On August 27, 2010, Blankenship faxed to Mori's home a three page letter (a copy of the letter was attached to Mori's declaration) containing allegations that Mori described as "bizarre, disgusting, and entirely false statement concerning [her] sexuality."1 Blankenship disguised his identity in the letter by using the name "Krissy Misty." The letter purported to be "cc'd" to various people including the principal at the school at which Mori worked. In the letter, Blankenship stated that he would disclose the false information to persons Mori knew.

On September 2, 2010, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order and set the matter for a hearing. Blankenship filed an answer opposing the temporary restraining order. In a declaration submitted with his answer, Blankenship stated the following facts:

Blankenship was a businessman, investor, and author of 11 books. Blankenship did not have a criminal history of violence, and had never had a restraining order imposed on him. Blankenship's relationship with Mori was "intimate" and not "casual." Blankenship ended his relationship with Mori in May 2010. When Blankenship ended his relationship with Mori, Mori threatened to hurt him. Mori previously had bragged about possessing a 9 millimeter handgun and being willing to use it. Blankenship stated that he had observed Mori express anger toward others and engage in intimidating and threatening behavior. After Blankenship ended his relationship with Mori, Mori "embarked on a campaign to harass" him and his new girlfriend. Among other things, Blankenship claimed that Mori came to his residence and rang his doorbell non-stop for hours at a time and sat outside his window and harassed him. Blankenship stated that he had conducted business at the hotel across from Mori's condominium building for the prior 10 years. In August 2010, Blankenship was in the area of the hotel viewing real properties. Blankenship denied writing or sending the offensive fax to Mori. Blankenship believed that Mori sent the fax to herself in an effort to retaliate against him for moving on with his life.

At the hearing on the request for a restraining order, Mori testified that the fax was sent from an Office Max in Cypress.2 The day after she received the fax, Mori drove to the Office Max where she spoke with the manager and two employees who helped a man send the fax. The employees stated that the man arrived with a woman. According to Mori, Blankenship's girlfriend worked near the Office Max.

The Office Max employees described the man as white, tall,3 and wearing gold jewelry.4 The trial court observed that on the date of the hearing Blankenship was wearing "a lot" of gold jewelry. Blankenship responded that he always wore a lot of gold jewelry. Blankenship denied ever having been to the Office Max in Cypress and testified that he did not know "Kristy Misty." Mori testified that on October 12, 2010, she received a blank e-mail from "Kristy Misty" sent to Mori's work e-mail address. Blankenship admitted that in 1988 or 1989 he pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering and spent five or six years in jail. The case apparently centered on false financial documents. Blankenship stated that one of his partners had false financial documents and he and his partner believed that they had been "hometowned" "big time."

The trial court found Mori to be more credible than Blankenship. The trial court found that Mori met her burden of proof and issued a restraining order that would expire on November 4, 2013.

DISCUSSION

Blankenship contends that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevent Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code,5 § 6200 et seq.) because Mori did not provide evidence of a prior act of violence or sexual abuse. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

The grant or denial of a protective order under the DVPA is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413, 420.) "`The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

B. Application of Relevant Principles

Under the DVPA, "a court may issue a protective order to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of domestic violence and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved. (§§ 6220, 6300.)" (Conness v. Satram (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 197, 200.) "Under the DVPA, `domestic violence' is defined, in relevant part, as abuse perpetrated against `[a] person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating . . . relationship.' (§ 6211, subd. (c).) `Abuse' is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or sexual assault, or placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another, or engaging in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to section 6320. (§ 6203.) The behavior outlined in section 6320 includes `. . . harassing, telephoning, . . . contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party . . . .' (§ 6320.) Thus, the requisite abuse need not be actual infliction of physical injury or assault. (Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2004) ¶ 5:67, p. 5-24.)" (Id. at pp. 201-202.)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the restraining order. The trial court questioned Blankenship's credibility and found Mori more convincing than Blankenship. Mori stated that she and Blankenship had a prior dating relationship—a point Blankenship does not dispute. Mori stated that after she ended her relationship with Blankenship in February 2010, Blankenship called her six to nine times a day from the end of March 2010 through June 2010, in an effort to convince her to continue their relationship. According to Mori, early in the afternoon on August 23, 2010, Blankenship called her and notified her that he was at the hotel across the street from her condominium building and he had seen her driving away. When Mori returned home at 5:00 p.m., Blankenship was sitting in front of the hotel facing the entrance to Mori's building. Mori felt the need to park away from her building and sneak in the building's back entrance. Blankenship remained at the hotel across the street from Mori's building or parked in his car nearby until 8:00 p.m. On August 27, 2010, Blankenship faxed to Mori's home a three page letter containing allegations that Mori described as "bizarre, disgusting, and entirely false statement concerning [her] sexuality." The letter indicated that copies of the letter had been sent to the principal at the school at which Mori worked and to others. In the letter, Blankenship stated that he would disclose the false information to persons Mori knew. Blankenship's telephone calls, faxed letter, and harassing conduct constitute "domestic violence" within the meaning of the DVPA. (Conness v. Satram, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 201-202.) Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the restraining order.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Mori is awarded her costs on appeal.

ARMSTRONG, Acting P. J. and KRIEGLER, J., concurs.