Anne T. v. Oak CA2/1

Filed 3/23/26 Anne T. v. Oak CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

ANNE T., B346741

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23STRO06643) v.

EUGENE OAK,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Melanie Ochoa, Judge. Dismissed. Eugene Oak, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Anne T., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

In October 2023, the trial court granted respondent Anne T. a three-year civil harassment prevention restraining order (CHRO) against appellant Eugene Oak.1 Oak did not appeal from the CHRO. Instead, Oak filed successive motions in the trial court, all of which failed, in an effort to have the court set aside or reconsider the CHRO and aspects of the prior proceedings. The court heard one tranche of such motions on January 8, 2024, and denied them. On March 20, 2025, the court denied a motion Oak filed to set aside at least one of the January 8, 2024 orders. We do not know which one(s), because the record on appeal does not include any minute orders from January 8, 2024 or a transcript of the March 20, 2025 hearing. Oak now appeals from the March 20, 2025 order. Given the deficiencies in the record, Oak has failed to establish the existence of appellate jurisdiction to review his claims. To the extent we can discern from the scant selection of relevant documents in the record, the March 20, 2025 order Oak seeks to appeal denied a motion to set aside what appears to be a January 2024 order denying a motion for reconsideration, which we would lack jurisdiction to review. We therefore dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Oak’s brief is prolix and convoluted, alleging a vast conspiracy against him, and the record he supplies is substantially incomplete. Its omissions include but are not limited to Anne T.’s request for a CHRO, the CHRO itself, the allegedly wrongful January 8, 2024 order, and the reporter’s