Jones v. Raras CA2/8

Filed 1/11/21 Jones v. Raras CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

DAVID DARYL JONES, B303053

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TC029151) v.

MARY JANE RARAS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary Y. Tanaka, Judge. Affirmed.

David Daryl Jones, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Mary Jane Raras, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent Mary Jane Raras.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent Perry Wilson. _______________________

David Daryl Jones sued his ex-wife Mary Jane Raras and her husband Perry Wilson for defamation. The trial court entered judgment in the defendants’ favor, and Jones appeals. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record on appeal consists of the trial court case summary, a minute order from the date of trial, a statement of decision, and forms pertaining to the filing of the appeal. We are limited in our ability to present the factual and procedural background of this matter. According to the trial court’s statement of decision, Jones claimed Raras and Wilson defamed his character, resulting in the loss of Jones’s relationship with his teenaged son William. The court conducted a court trial on November 6, 2019. According to the statement of decision, Jones testified he and William had a good relationship when his son was younger, but William stopped speaking to Jones when he got older. Jones described an incident in which his telephone conversation with William ended abruptly, which Jones believed to be the result of Raras and Wilson speaking badly of him to William. The statement of decision indicates Jones attempted to call William as a witness, but William did not appear in court. The court determined that although William had been served with a subpoena, neither Raras nor Wilson had been served with the subpoena as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1987, subdivision (a) when the party to be subpoenaed is a minor. The court concluded it could not order William to appear at trial because Jones had not properly served the subpoena upon him.