George v. Hartman CA6

Filed 12/26/24 George v. Hartman CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

KOSHY PUTHUKKERIL GEORGE, H050941 (Santa Clara County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 21CH010234)

v.

ERIC FLOYD HARTMAN,

Appellant.

THE COURT1 Eric Floyd Hartman appeals from the trial court’s grant of Koshy Puthukkeril George’s request to modify the existing civil harassment restraining order protecting George from Hartman. Hartman argues that the trial court had neither personal nor subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the request. He makes this argument based on his contention that George moved from his residence. Hartman fails to make reasoned argument or cite relevant authority to support his theory. Further, we note that the trial court already had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the action and, moreover, the record reflects that George moved back to his home. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order modifying the civil harassment restraining order.

1 Before Greenwood, P. J., Grover, J., and Danner, J.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 The trial court originally issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) in August 2021 on George’s ex parte request for a civil harassment restraining order and temporary restraining order against Hartman. The court ultimately granted a restraining order, with an expiration date of December 16, 2023. A different panel of this court previously adjudicated two appeals arising from the civil harassment case. (George v. Hartman (Nov. 9, 2023, H049735, H049886) [nonpub. opn.].) Both of those appeals were filed by Hartman, and we considered them together.3 The prior appeals challenged (1) the trial court’s order granting George’s petition for a civil harassment restraining order after a hearing that took place more than 25 days after the court’s ex parte issuance of a TRO; and (2) the order granting George’s motion for attorney fees. Hartman disputed the trial court’s jurisdiction to issue the orders. We concluded the procedural defects raised by Hartman did not divest the court of jurisdiction, and we affirmed the orders. In February 2023, the trial court heard George’s motion to amend the civil harassment restraining order. In the motion, George did not request an extension as to the duration of the order, but he did request that the court order Hartman to “[c]omply with all terms and conditions of the December 13, 2021 entered [o]rder.” He also requested that the court order Hartman to further refrain from a number of specified actions, such as honking the horn of his car as he passed by George’s home, putting tarps