Sisson v. Venezia CA3

Filed 11/25/14 Sisson v. Venezia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

VERONICA DAYLE SISSON, C074595

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SDR0041841)

v.

MICHAEL VENEZIA,

Appellant.

In this pro se judgment roll appeal, defendant Michael Venezia challenges the five-year restraining order issued by the trial court against him at the request of plaintiff Veronica Dayle Sisson.1 Defendant claims service of the restraining order was improper and thus the order is void.

1 Although the parties’ trial court designations are petitioner (Sisson) and respondent (Venezia), and because Sisson’s designation in this court is respondent, we will refer to them as plaintiff and defendant to avoid confusion.

1

As we will explain, defendant’s briefing is deficient in numerous respects, including his failure to provide citations to the record or make coherent arguments supported by pertinent authorities. Those deficiencies aside, the five-year restraining order he challenges was in fact vacated by the trial court and a new one-year restraining order issued following a contested hearing in which he participated, rendering his claim moot. We therefore dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND Defendant has elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120.) As a result, the appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of the hearings that gave rise to the order challenged in this appeal. This is referred to as a “judgment roll” appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083 (Allen); Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) From the scant record on appeal, we glean the following: Plaintiff and defendant had, at one time, been involved in a domestic relationship, the exact nature of which is unclear. According to a proof of personal service filed with the court, defendant was personally served on August 23, 2012, with the following documents: a notice of court hearing (Judicial Council Forms, form DV-109), a request for domestic violence restraining order (Judicial Council Forms, form DV-100), a blank response to request for domestic violence restraining order (Judicial Council Forms, form DV-120), and a temporary restraining order (Judicial Council Forms, form DV- 110). On September 10, 2012, both plaintiff and defendant attended a hearing wherein plaintiff was granted a temporary restraining order against defendant effective pending trial (scheduled for September 25, 2012). Defendant did not attend the September 25, 2012, proceeding. The trial court found defendant was not only present when the trial was set, but was also properly served with plaintiff’s request for the temporary restraining order. The court proceeded to hear