FACTS In 2014, the district court granted respondent Ripley Karen Bresson an ex parte HRO against appellant Jason James Ourada based on the court’s finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Ourada harassed Bresson by physically or sexually assaulting her.1 The HRO prohibited Ourada from having any direct or indirect contact with Bresson and from being within 500 feet of Bresson’s address in Vesta, Minnesota, and stated that the HRO was in effect until J(Case No. UNPUBLISHED OPINION PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a harassment restraining order (HRO), appellant argues that the district court erred when it (a) denied him his right to cross examine witnesses (b) based its ruling, in part, on hearsay evidence (c) based a factual finding on an allegation in respondent’s petition that was not proved during the hearing on the petition (d) failed to recognize that certain conduct was not harassment (e) based the HRO on conduct that was not a violation of any prior HRO and (f) granted a temporary ex parte HRO based on a previously adjudicated incident. * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Beito, Beito & Lengeling, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge Ross, Judge and Peterson, Judge. Bye, Ballard Spahr LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent) Thomas M. Filed Affirmed Peterson, Judge* Redwood County District Court File No. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A18-1553 Ripley Karen Bresson, Respondent, vs. This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.

Finding Our Way by Jayson James