Royal Palm Crest v. Groft CA2/7

Filed 8/20/24 Royal Palm Crest v. Groft CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

ROYAL PALM CREST, INC., B331401

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 22STRO06123)

SAMUEL GROFT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Timothy Martella, Judge. Affirmed. Samuel Groft, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________ Samuel Groft appeals from a three-year workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) obtained by Royal Palm Crest, Inc., (Royal Palm) under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8,1

1 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

protecting three Royal Palm employees. Groft contends the trial court violated his due process rights by holding the WVRO hearing in his absence, even though he told opposing counsel he was running late and the attorney agreed to wait for him to arrive. Because the record on appeal does not support Groft’s contentions, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2022 Royal Palm filed a petition for a WVRO against Groft protecting three Royal Palm employees: Promise Okechukwu, Collenthmary Chukwu, and Eke Ukpai. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) the following day. The TRO was reissued and the hearing on the WVRO was continued multiple times. On February 23, 2023 Groft filed a request to continue the hearing, which was granted. On May 25, 2023 Groft gave notice that the hearing had again been continued to July 5, 2023. On July 5, 2023 the trial court held a hearing on Royal Palm’s request for a WVRO. According to the minute order, the court called the matter for hearing at 1:40 p.m. Royal Palm’s attorney, Ali Ziai, appeared for Royal Palm, and Okechukwu was present. Groft did not appear by 1:40 p.m., nor did he call the courtroom. Ziai confirmed that the facts in the petition for a WVRO were correct and Royal Palm was still seeking a WVRO. The trial court granted Royal Palm’s request and issued a three-year WVRO protecting Okechukwu, Chukwu, and Ukpai. According to the July 5 minute order, the court reviewed the case