Marriage of J.M. and S.M. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Mar 18, 2026 No. B344793Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the appellant's motion to dismiss a domestic violence restraining order petition, as the appellant had requested and agreed to the trial continuances and failed to demonstrate any prejudice.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to dismiss a protective order petition based on the expiration of the temporary restraining order deadline.
Whether the appellant's due process rights were violated by the timing of the hearing on the protective order.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“S.M. fails to identify any prejudice he suffered resulting from the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.”

“S.M. cannot now claim those continuances were unlawful.”

“Even if the hearing was untimely, which it was not, this did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction over J.M.’s request for a permanent protective order.”

Filed 3/18/26 Marriage of J.M. and S.M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re Marriage of J.M. and 2d Civ. No. B344793 S.M. (Super. Ct. No. D410362) (Ventura County)

J.M.,

Respondent,

S.M.,

Appellant.

S.M. appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a pending request for a domestic violence restraining order against him. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In June 2023, J.M. filed a request for a protective order against S.M. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) until the July 2023 hearing on J.M.’s request for a

protective order. At the July 2023 hearing, S.M.’s attorney requested a trial continuance, which the trial court granted. The parties agreed to continue the trial again in September 2023, December 2023, June 2024, and September 2024. In October 2024, the parties appeared, requested the matter be set for trial, and the trial court set the matter for March 2025. In January 2025, S.M. filed a “request to dismiss pursuant to termination of temporary restraining order,” contending that, at the October 2024 hearing, the trial court failed to obtain S.M.’s time waiver when setting the matter for trial. S.M. contended the TRO had expired, and the court could not conduct the upcoming trial. At the March 2025 hearing, the trial court denied S.M.’s motion to dismiss, noting that S.M.’s counsel “was present and agreed to setting today’s trial date and he represented that today’s date would be after the conclusion of his client’s related criminal matter.” The trial court proceeded with the trial, granted J.M.’s request, and issued a five-year protective order. DISCUSSION S.M. contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss. We disagree. Under the Domestic Violence Protection Act, a court is authorized to issue a protective order enjoining a party from engaging in specific acts of harassment or abuse against a spouse or cohabitant. (Fam. Code1, §§ 6211, subds. (a) & (b), 6218.) A protective order must be set for hearing within 21 to 25 days of

Marriage of J.M. and S.M. CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.

AI Brief