B.People v. A.Z. CA4/1

Filed 1/20/26 B.P. v. A.Z. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

B.P., D085310

Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 24HR010925C)

A.Z.,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rebecca F. Zipp, Judge. Affirmed. A.Z., in pro. per., for Appellant. B.P., in pro. per.; Law Offices of Casey D. Gish and Casey D. Gish for Respondent.

A.Z. appeals from an order granting B.P.’s request for a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) on behalf of himself and his spouse P.I. A.Z. contends that: (1) the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over her because she was never served with the CHRO request; (2) the order must be set aside because she did not have notice and an opportunity to be heard;

(3) the trial court erred by granting the CHRO even though no default had been requested or entered against her; (4) there is no clear and convincing evidence of harassment or that the alleged harassment would continue or recur; and (5) the CHRO violated her First Amendment right to free speech. We reject these contentions and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript or settled statement of the CHRO hearing or the exhibits admitted at the hearing, and the appellant’s appendix is missing key documents, including the CHRO request itself. We do our best to summarize the factual and procedural background based on the limited record before us. On September 13, 2024, attorney B.P. filed a request for CHRO against A.Z. on behalf of himself and P.I. The dispute apparently originated from two other cases, one in which B.P. represented a party who sued A.Z. in a consumer fraud matter relating to her sales of German Shepherd puppies, and another in which A.Z. sued B.P. for defamation for accusing her of being an “animal abuser.” The appellate record does not reflect whether the court issued a temporary CHRO pending the noticed hearing. The noticed hearing was originally set for October 7 then continued to November 14. On November 4, B.P. filed a proof of service of the CHRO papers with the court. In the proof of service, a process server stated under penalty of perjury that he personally served A.Z. with the CHRO request, the notice of hearing, and the order continuing the hearing. The process server stated that he “personally gave copies of the documents” to A.Z. at a listed address in Los Angeles on October 24.