Heale v. Pratt CA4/3

── Heale v. Pratt CA4/3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 Heale v. Pratt CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE LARA HEALE, Plaintiff and Respondent, G065040 v. (Super. Ct. No. 24V001838) ADAM MCCURDY PRATT, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed. Adam McCurdy Pratt, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Lara Heale, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *  Adam Pratt appeals the trial court’s grant of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against him sought by his ex-girlfriend, Lara Heale. Pratt claims the court erred by improperly admitting and crediting Heale’s evidence and refusing to admit or consider his evidence. We find no error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Heale filed a request for DVRO against Pratt on July 22, 2024, claiming Pratt refused to let her leave his home and took her keys and purse. Heale claimed she escaped and ran to Pratt’s friend’s home. Heale alleged Pratt continued to call her and came to her home after the incident. She also alleged Pratt had harassed her with calls, e-mails, and voicemails, and stalked and threatened her by the same means. Heale attached several e-mails from Pratt to her containing obscene and threatening language. She also attached call history logs showing numerous phone calls from a “No Caller ID” number. On July 22, 2024, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) through August 12 and scheduled a hearing for that date. The TRO prohibited Pratt from contacting Heale or her children and ordered Pratt to stay at least 100 yards away from Heale. Heale was unable to serve Pratt before the first hearing and asked for a continuance. The trial court rescheduled the hearing to September 26 and extended the TRO to the new hearing date. Heale was finally able to serve Pratt via posting, after obtaining permission from the court. Pratt appeared on September 26 and asked for a continuance. The court granted a continuance to October 24 and kept the TRO in effect. 2  Pratt then filed his own application for DVRO, alleging Heale was the one who had verbally abused and threatened him. Pratt attached several e-mails from Heale containing heated and obscene language toward him. At the hearing, Heale presented the trial court with a binder containing printouts of e-mails and call histories. She also gave a copy of the binder to Pratt. Heale testified that, despite the TRO, Pratt had continued to call her up until the night before the hearing. In fact, she said he had called her six times in a row at midnight and left voicemails. When the court asked Pratt whether this was true, he admitted he had called Heale more than once, though he claimed there were benign reasons for doing so. The court issued the DVRO in favor of Heale and against Pratt, finding he had perpetrated domestic violence. The DVRO expires in 2027. The court then denied Pratt’s request for DVRO. Pratt timely appealed. DISC