H.People v. J.A. CA2/6
Filed 12/3/24 H.P. v. J.A. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
H.P., 2d Civ. No. B327784 (Super. Ct. No. D396062) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
J.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
H.P. obtained a permanent domestic violence restraining order against J.A. (Fam. Code,1 § 6220), and J.A. appeals. J.A. claims, among other things, that he was denied due process because 1) he was not served notice of the hearing on H.P.’s request for that restraining order, and 2) he was denied his right to a continuance when he appeared at the hearing. On this incomplete record, he has not shown error. We affirm.
1 All statutory references are to the Family Code.
FACTS In 2019, H.P. obtained a three-year domestic violence restraining order against J.A. In 2022, H.P. filed a request to renew the restraining order. She alleged J.A. had been arrested twice for “felony stalking.” The trial court set a hearing for January 18, 2023. J.A. was personally served with the request to renew the restraining order and the notice of the January 18th hearing by a sheriff’s “authorized agent” on January 13, 2023. On January 18, Commissioner Kawai presided. There is no reporter’s transcript. The clerk’s minutes show J.A.’s counsel appeared “via Zoom” and requested a continuance. The trial court granted that request and continued the hearing to February 8, 2023. The trial court thereafter ordered the hearing continued to February 10, 2023. J.A. claimed neither he nor his counsel were served notice of the February 10th hearing date. But J.A.’s counsel checked “the docket” and learned the hearing date had been changed to February 10. There is no reporter’s transcript of the February 10th hearing. The clerk’s minutes show that H.P. appeared. J.A. appeared with counsel. The trial court denied J.A.’s request for a continuance. H.P. and J.A. testified. The court granted H.P.’s request to “renew the restraining order” and made it a ”permanent order.” J.A. appealed and requested a settled statement. His counsel’s declaration contained a request for findings that the clerk’s minute order for the January 18th hearing was not accurate because his counsel did not appear at that hearing and he did not request a continuance. J.A.’s counsel declared that he talked with the court clerk by phone on January 18 only to
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)