L.T. v. M.M. CA3

Filed 1/30/26 L.T. v. M.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

L.T., C103764

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25DV00265)

v.

M.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In February 2025, L.T. (ex-wife) obtained a five-year domestic violence restraining order (the February 2025 order) against self-represented M.M. (ex-husband). Two months later, the trial court issued an order (the April 2025 order) denying ex- husband’s request to terminate or modify the February 2025 order. Ex-husband appealed both orders the following month. Ex-wife has not filed a respondent’s brief, so we decide this appeal based on the record provided, the opening brief, and any oral argument by ex- husband. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2); In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1.)

1

We conclude (1) ex-husband’s appeal from the February 2025 order is untimely and (2) his challenges to the April 2025 order lack merit, so we affirm the April 2025 order and dismiss the appeal from the February 2025 order. Statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The trial court granted the February 2025 order after a hearing held on February 14, 2025 (the February 2025 hearing). The order required ex-husband to stay at least 100 yards away from ex-wife and from any doctor’s appointment involving their child. It also gave ex-wife sole legal and physical custody of child. The record on appeal does not include ex-wife’s petition for the order or a reporter’s transcript of the February 2025 hearing. According to the order, because both parties appeared for the February 2025 hearing, no other proof of service of the order was required. In April 2025, ex-husband filed a request under section 533 to end or change the February 2025 order. He argued ex-wife was allowed to play an illegally recorded audio file at the February 2025 hearing without notice to him. He also asked the court to review videos that he recorded on April 21, 2021 and January 22, 2025 and his phone bill from January 1, 2024 to December 16, 2024, claiming the videos and phone bill evidence disproved ex-wife’s claims. Ex-wife disagreed with ex-husband’s request. She argued: (1) the evidence he offered was available at the time of the February 2025 hearing; (2) ex-husband was dangerous; and (3) the February 2025 order was in child’s best interest. Following a hearing on April 30, 2025 (the April 2025 hearing), the trial court issued the April 2025 order denying ex-husband’s request. The court concluded ex- husband was not contending that circumstances had changed or offering evidence that was unavailable at the time of the February 2025 hearing; rather, he was requesting reconsideration of the February 2025 order, but that request was untimely. According to