Owens v. Simonet CA2/6

Filed 6/2/22 Owens v. Simonet CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

CHRISTINE OWENS, 2d Civil No. B315204 (Super. Ct. No. D401700) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

MAHERSHAL SIMONET,

Defendant and Respondent.

Christine Owens appeals from the order dissolving a temporary restraining order (TRO) and dismissing her petition for a restraining order. She contends the trial court erred in ruling against her based on her absence at the hearing. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Owens filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against Mahershal Simonet. The trial court issued a TRO and ordered that it would expire at the end of the hearing scheduled for July 9, 2021. At her request, the hearing was continued to August 6, and the TRO was extended to that

date. Owens’s attorney sent her an email that stated in part: “For the August 6, 2021 hearing, if you are not going to be there, the clerk said the Judge can make a decision by ruling on the pleadings (based on everything you submitted in writing without testimony).” Owens filed several declarations. On August 6, Simonet testified through video conferencing. Owens did not appear. The court ordered the TRO dissolved and the petition dismissed with prejudice. DISCUSSION Owens contends the trial court erred by dissolving the temporary restraining order and dismissing her petition after she failed to appear at the hearing. No error has been shown. “‘We review an appeal from an order denying a request to renew a domestic violence restraining order for abuse of discretion.’” (In re Marriage of Martindale & Ochoa (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 54, 59.) Likewise, the “denial of a permanent injunction . . . will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. . . . ‘[T]o the extent the trial court had to review the evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, and draw inferences from the presented facts, [we] review such factual findings under a substantial evidence standard.’” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 390.) The TRO expired at the end of the hearing on August 6. A party seeking to extend a TRO has the burden to establish that they still have “a ‘reasonable apprehension’ of future abuse.” (Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290.) The only record of the August 6 hearing is the minute order. It does not state that the court’s order was based on