N.V. v. C.C. CA3

Filed 2/3/26 N.V. v. C.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Plumas) ----

N.V., C101039

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CV2300214)

v.

C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted N.V.’s request for a civil harassment restraining order against her high school classmate, C.C. On appeal, C.C. argues his due process right to a fair trial was violated because N.V. was represented by her father in the trial court, who engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We conclude C.C. lacks standing to raise this challenge on appeal because the prohibition

1

against the unauthorized practice of law is designed to protect the litigant who is represented by an unlicensed person, not the opposing party. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND The factual basis of the trial court’s order is immaterial to this appeal. It suffices to say that N.V.’s father filed a request for the civil harassment restraining order on her behalf in October 2023, when she was 17 years old. In a signed statement that supported the request, N.V. explained that C.C.’s behavior toward her made her afraid to go to school. By the time an evidentiary hearing on N.V.’s allegations occurred in March 2024, both N.V. and C.C. had apparently turned 18. N.V.’s father questioned and cross- examined C.C. and other witnesses at the hearing. In a written ruling, the trial court found N.V. had established that C.C.’s in-school conduct warranted issuance of a two- year civil harassment restraining order that, among other things, prohibited C.C. from contacting N.V. in any way. The restraining order expires in March 2026. C.C. filed a timely appeal and the matter became fully briefed in October 2025. DISCUSSION Practice of Law By a Layperson C.C. argues his due process right to a fair trial was violated when N.V.’s father practiced law without a license in the trial court. N.V. argues that because the prohibition on the unlicensed practice of law is designed to protect someone who is represented by an unlicensed person and not their opponent, we should reject C.C.’s attempt to “appropriate” the rule for his benefit on the merits. We conclude as a threshold matter that C.C. lacks standing to raise this appellate claim.