N.S. v. B.A. CA3

Filed 8/13/25 N.S. v. B.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ----

N.S., C101604

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FL0001696)

v.

B.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The family court issued a domestic violence restraining order against appellant B.A. after two hearings on respondent N.S.’s request. B.A. appeals the restraining order, contending the family court erred in: (1) allowing N.S. to testify at both hearings in violation of B.A.’s statutory right to cross-examine; (2) refusing to review the transcript of N.S.’s first testimony; (3) drawing an adverse inference from B.A.’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege by omitting evidence favorable to B.A. from its statement of decision evidence.

1

We discern no violation of B.A.’s right to cross-examine and conclude any error in the family court’s alleged refusal to review the transcript was harmless. We further find B.A. forfeited his claims as to the deficiencies in the statement of decision. We affirm the order. Because N.S. did not file a respondent’s brief, we decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by B.A. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND N.S. filed a verified request for domestic violence restraining order against B.A. on December 7, 2023. The request was heard on December 27, 2023, with both parties appearing in pro per (the first hearing). After N.S. testified, the family court asked B.A. if he had any questions for N.S., and B.A. responded he had none. B.A. also claimed he was unprepared for the hearing and requested a continuance. The family court continued the hearing to January 10, 2024. After four more continuances, the request was heard on May 8, 2024. At the May 8, 2024 hearing (the second hearing), B.A. appeared with his counsel. B.A.’s counsel informed the family court that N.S. had concluded her testimony at the first hearing and offered a copy of the transcript. The family court allowed B.A.’s counsel to use the transcript but stated it would ask N.S. to testify again because it had no recollection of N.S.’s prior testimony. After N.S. finished her testimony, B.A.’s counsel cross-examined N.S. When N.S. called B.A. as a witness, B.A. refused to testify, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The family court granted N.S.’s request and issued a one-year restraining order against B.A. It also issued an oral statement of decision at the request of B.A.’s counsel, explaining that it found B.A. committed an act of domestic violence against N.S. but noted N.S. was not injured. B.A. made no objection to the statement of decision. On May 24, 2024, B.A. filed a notice of intention to move for a new trial based on: “1. Irregularity in the proceedings of the Court [citation]; 2. Irregularity in the