Rose v. Doran CA3

Filed 7/30/21 Rose v. Doran CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

DONNA ROSE, C089964

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 190522)

v.

MICHAEL DORAN,

Appellant.

Appellant Michael Doran, an attorney appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal and an amended notice of appeal from multi-faceted proceedings in family court; neither notice specified the order(s) from which Doran purported to appeal or the date of the order(s). The original notice of appeal from an unlimited civil case indicates (via checked box) that Doran is appealing from judgment after court trial; the amended notice filed six days later indicates an appeal from judgment after court trial as well as from an order after judgment. Both notices of appeal were filed in July 2019. Doran’s opening

1

brief, filed in July 2020, is disorganized and nearly incomprehensible. Respondent Donna Rose did not file a brief. The appeal was assigned to this panel for resolution on February 26, 2021. As we explain, all of Doran’s claims, as best as we can decipher them, are either jurisdictionally barred, forfeited, or both. We therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On August 6, 2018, Rose filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Doran. As relevant here, Rose sought personal conduct orders, stay away orders, and a move-out order requiring Doran to leave a residence that Rose proffered she owned. She also sought orders granting her sole possession of the residence and attorney fees and costs. In support of her request, Rose set forth that she and Doran had a child together who was then 18 years old. Rose indicated that she and Doran had lived together but had separated on December 31, 2017. On May 3, 2018, Rose served Doran with a 60-day notice to quit the residence. After he refused to leave, Rose filed an unlawful detainer action against Doran; at the time Rose filed her DVRO request the unlawful detainer trial had not been scheduled. Doran opposed Rose’s request for a DVRO. In support of his opposition, Doran said he and Rose co-owned the residence. Beginning in September 2016, Doran asserted, he and Rose “had three joint ventures, rising [sic] their daughter, building a commercial building for their business, and clearly a joint venture with [the residence].” He also noted pending litigation for “partition and SALE” relative to the residence, which he identified as case No. “190244.” Doran denied ever being violent toward Rose. On August 20, 2018, the trial court presided over Rose’s request for order seeking “fair rental value for [the residence], reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture and daily damages for the agreement.” The court ruled in favor of Rose, finding the fair rental value of the property to be $2,000 a month and also awarding her attorney fees. Ruling