Sabado v. Gaylord CA2/5

Filed 1/29/16 Sabado v. Gaylord CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

ELEANOR SABADO, B261926

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SQ006689) v.

KEVIN JAMES GAYLORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa Hart Cole, Judge. Reversed with instructions. Tabatabai & Blonstein, Farzad Tabatabai and Rema Haddad for Defendant and Appellant. Tanya Dellaca for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

This appeal involves the application of former Family Code1 section 243, subdivision (d) to a continuance request made during an initial appearance in a restraining order case. (Stats. 2010, ch. 135, § 156.) Effective January 1, 2016, sections 243 and 245 were amended to address questions concerning continuances during an initial appearance in a restraining order case. (Stats. 2015, ch. 411, §§ 5-6.) Unless otherwise indicated, all references to section 243 are to the statute in effect in 2014 and 2015. Defendant, Kevin James Gaylord, appeals from a restraining order issued against him. Plaintiff, Eleanor Sabado, filed a restraining petition naming defendant. She alleged defendant was stalking her. Plaintiff served defendant with the restraining order notice pursuant to section 243, subdivision (b), six days prior to the noticed hearing. At the restraining order hearing, defendant requested a continuance under section 243, subdivision (d). Defendant’s continuance request was denied. Following testimony from plaintiff and defendant, the trial court found in her favor and issued the restraining order. Defendant asserts the trial court committed reversible error as a matter of law because a continuance under section 243, subdivision (d) is mandatory. We agree with defendant that he was entitled to a mandatory continuance under Family Code section 243, subdivision (d). Upon remittitur issuance, defendant shall be entitled to a new trial under the circumstances we will describe.