NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

OPINION

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

On May 30, 2014, the superior court issued a civil harassment order restraining appellant Donald Edward Kerby from harassing respondent Rex Kim Smith and his office assistant respondent Khuong Xuyen. Another order was issued restraining appellant Jacquelyn Neal Kerby from harassing the same persons. A third restraining order was issued restraining appellant Kyle Neal Kerby from harassing the same persons. Donald filed his own request for a civil harassment order to protect him, Jacquelyn, Kyle and Kurtis Firlej, which the trial court denied.

According to respondents' brief, the Kerbys are tenants in a mobile home park managed by Smith and his assistant. In his request for restraining orders, Smith described numerous incidents when the Kerbys physically threatened and screamed obscenities at him, a utility company worker checking gas lines and technicians connecting security equipment at the mobile home park. During one incident, according to Smith, Kyle ripped off the shirt of a security guard. Another time, again according to Smith's request for restraining orders, Kyle punched Smith in the head four or five times. Smith says the police were called to the park several times to stop the Kerbys during their disturbances.

Appellants' brief contains numerous unexplained documents such as an event record from the Westminster Police Department. The notice of appeal states appellants are appealing from a judgment entered on May 30, 2014. The record on appeal does not contain a judgment.

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. No opposition to the motion was filed. This court notified the parties the motion would be decided in conjunction with the decision on appeal. "A `reviewing court has the inherent power, on motion or on its own motion, to dismiss an appeal . . . .'" (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Appellants have not cited to any error by the superior court. Nor have they followed the rules for appeals set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 8.204. Accordingly, we grant respondents' motion.

The appeal is dismissed. Respondents are to recover their costs on appeal.

IKOLA, J. and THOMPSON, J., concurs.