Hogan v. Waikem CA2/3

Filed 11/6/15 Hogan v. Waikem CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ERIN MARIE HOGAN, B257873

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS148640) v.

JORDAN KENSLEY WAIKEM,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carol Boas Goodson, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Erin Marie Hogan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and Appellant Erin Marie Hogan appeals the trial court’s judgment denying her request for additional time to serve Defendant Jordan Waikem with a Code of Civil Procedure1 section 527.6 petition for a civil harassment restraining order. The trial court denied Hogan’s request and dissolved Hogan’s temporary restraining order against Defendant based on its determination that the petition, on its face, failed to state conduct constituting civil harassment. We conclude that the court erred in finding that Hogan failed to state a claim as Hogan’s petition states a prima facie case for civil harassment, and the court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Hogan additional time to serve Defendant, who appears to have intentionally evaded service. To clarify, we are not holding that Hogan has proved her case for a permanent injunction. Rather, we are merely holding that Hogan has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for civil harassment and should have been allotted additional time to serve Defendant prior to a hearing where the parties would present evidence and argument regarding whether a permanent injunction should be issued. As this case was brought before us as an appeal rather than on petition for a writ of mandate, the allegations within Hogan’s petition are now more than a year old. We are thus reluctant to order the trial court to reissue the temporary restraining order per section 527.6, subdivision (o)(1), without new information showing that Defendant poses a present threat of harassment to Hogan. We therefore order the trial court, 10 days following our issuance of remittitur, to issue an order to show cause as to whether Hogan still seeks a civil harassment restraining order. In support of her new request, Hogan must provide the court with an amended petition setting forth current facts showing that the threat of harassment posed by Defendant in 2014 continues to exist.