White v. Pixley CA3

Filed 3/9/26 White v. Pixley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

DOREEN FAITH WHITE, C103111

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCV0049757)

v.

CHERYL A. PIXLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is Cheryl A. Pixley’s second attempt to appeal a civil harassment restraining order issued against her. Because our dismissal of her first appeal was with prejudice, Pixley is barred from challenging the restraining order in this current appeal and we therefore dismiss it. BACKGROUND Given our conclusion that Pixley may not file a second appeal challenging the civil harassment restraining order, we limit our discussion to the relevant procedural background and do not discuss the underlying facts.

1

In early 2023, Doreen Faith White filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Pixley. A hearing on the request was held on February 6, 2023. White and Pixley both appeared in propria persona and both testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Pixley had committed civil harassment. That same day (i.e., February 6, 2023), the court issued a written civil harassment restraining order against Pixley; the order expired on February 6, 2024. On March 2, 2023, Pixley filed a timely notice of appeal of the civil harassment restraining order, and the appeal was docketed in this court as case No. C098063. We refer to this as the first appeal, and we take judicial notice of it. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d) [judicial notice may be taken of “[r]ecords of . . . any court of this state”].) We note a civil harassment restraining order “is appealable as an appeal from an order granting an injunction.” (R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 181, 187; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6) [an appeal may be taken from “an order granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction”].) On April 6, 2023, a little over a month after filing her first appeal, Pixley returned to the superior court and filed a motion to terminate the civil harassment restraining order and/or grant her a new trial. In support of the motion, Pixley argued there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of harassment and she did not receive a fair trial. At a hearing held shortly thereafter, the court noted Pixley’s motion was akin to a motion for reconsideration. It also correctly advised Pixley it could not consider the motion until her appeal was resolved. “Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the appellate court and divests the trial court of jurisdiction to make any order affecting the judgment.” (People v. Espinosa (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1496.) On July 10, 2024, this court dismissed Pixley’s first appeal because she failed to file an opening brief. Our records show the clerk’s transcript was filed on October 26, 2023, and the reporter’s transcript was filed on March 14, 2024. On March 14, 2024, Pixley was notified the record on appeal had been filed, which meant her opening brief