Rosa V. v. Ali H. CA6

Filed 7/6/22 Rosa V. v. Ali H. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ROSA V., H047642 (Santa Clara County Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 2013-1-CP-020909)

v.

ALI H.,

Respondent. Appellant Rosa V. filed a notice of appeal seeking review of an order denying her request for a restraining order against respondent Ali H. As appellant has failed to meet her burden to show error on the trial court’s part in doing so, we will affirm the order. I. BACKGROUND1 Appellant commenced this appeal in December 2019 by filing a notice of appeal from a “judgment after court trial” entered in November 2019. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.100(g),2 appellant filed a Civil Case Information Statement (CCIS), to which she attached a findings and order after hearing filed in the trial court in December 2019, following a hearing in November 2019.3 In the order, the trial court

1 As discussed, post, appellant failed to comply with various procedural requirements in briefing this appeal, limiting this court’s ability to recite the factual and procedural background underlying the matter. We provide this brief statement to give context to the discussion of the deficiencies in appellant’s briefs. 2 Undesignated references to rules of court are to the California Rules of Court. 3 Appellant did not designate the December 2019 order as part of the record. This court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of that order.

denied appellant’s request for a domestic violence restraining order against respondent, and dismissed the temporary restraining order that had previously been issued against respondent. The court issued certain “conduct orders,” and made orders regarding custody and visitation of the parties’ minor child. In her CCIS, appellant described the nature of the action as “dismissal of evidence showing first degree burns, pain and suffering and abuse disclosures.” On its own motion, this court deemed appellant’s notice of appeal filed on the date the trial court issued the written order, such that the appeal of the order denying the restraining order was timely. (Rule 8.104(d).) II. DISCUSSION Unfortunately, consideration of appellant’s appeal from the December 2019 order begins and ends with a discussion of the deficiencies in appellant’s briefs on appeal. Rule 8.204(a)(2), requires an appellant to “[s]tate the nature of the action, the relief sought in the trial court, and the judgment or order appealed from” in the opening brief, and to explain why the order is appealable. Moreover, each brief filed in an appeal must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Specifically, the appellant must include “a summary of the significant facts limited to matters in the record.” (Rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) Each point raised in the brief must be supported “by argument, and if possible, by citation of authority[.]” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(C).) Appellant has failed to comply with rule 8.204 in several regards. These deficiencies require us to affirm the trial court’s order. In her briefs, appellant fails to identify the order she is appealing from. It is not clear if she seeks review of the order denying her request for a restraining order, or the custody and visitation orders the trial court made after denying that request. Appellant’s description of the nature of the action in the CCIS she filed with this court suggests she seeks review of evidentiary rulings the court made at the hearing. Appellant does not