Meraz v. Navarro CA5

Filed 10/17/24 Meraz v. Navarro CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ANDREA MERAZ, F085873 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22DV-0360) v.

ADRIAN RUDY NAVARRO, SR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Brian N. Chase, Commissioner. Adrian Rudy Navarro, Sr., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Andrea Meraz filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order, protecting herself, her child, and her mother, from Adrian Navarro. After the request was granted, Navarro filed this appeal, arguing his constitutional rights to due process and “an impartial tribunal” were violated. He also argues the trial court violated the California

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Rules of Court, no evidence supported granting the restraining order, and he was not properly served. We affirm. BACKGROUND In the original filing, Meraz requested a domestic violence restraining order against Navarro and sought to protect herself, her child, and her mother. Relative to the mother, the request stated the mother “ha[d] given [her] a place to stay” and Navarro “hates [the mother] and has made the statement that he would beat her ass if she said anything to him.” The request was signed “under penalty of perjury ….” The matter proceeded to a hearing, and Meraz testified she was in an intimate relationship with Navarro. She explained the relationship turned physically abusive, with Navarro physically restraining her “[m]aybe ten or so times.” Navarro also testified, denying all abuse. The trial court ruled the “acts” testified to “clearly constitute[d] domestic violence ….” It subsequently granted “the request for the domestic violence restraining order … for a period of five years.” The order did not include the child, but did include the mother because Meraz resided with her. DISCUSSION Navarro raises four issues. One, was his constitutional right to an “impartial tribunal” violated? Two, did the trial court violate California Rules of Court, rule 2.818(a)(3)? Three, did substantial evidence support the granted order? Four, was Navarro improperly served? Finding no errors, we affirm. I. Impartial Tribunal “It is axiomatic that ‘[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.’ ” (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (2009) 556 U.S. 868, 876.) “In civil proceedings, [the] guarantee [to due process] includes the right to have a matter decided by a tribunal having jurisdiction of the action that is free of bias and conducts a full hearing on the matter after the parties have been given notice of the proceeding and an