L.A. v. Brown CA2/6

Filed 7/20/22 L.A. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

L.A., 2d Civ. No. B310964 (Super. Ct. No. 21CV-0020 Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

MARK BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

While still a minor, L.A. petitioned for a civil harassment restraining order against Mark Brown, his former attorney and roommate. Brown did not file a response to the petition, which was scheduled to be heard on February 5, 2021. Brown submitted a request to continue the hearing on February 4, 2021. The request was “not filed” by the clerk and the hearing went forward as scheduled.1

We grant the motion for judicial notice filed by Brown on 1

November 16, 2021, and the motion for judicial notice filed by L.A. on January 21, 2022. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.)

The hearing was held by “Zoom” videoconference. After noting Brown’s absence, the trial court examined L.A. and found “clear and convincing evidence to issue a [three-year] restraining order.” Brown contends this was error (1) because the court clerk improperly refused to file his request for a continuance and (2) because his failure to appear was the result of an issue with the Zoom application. The record fails to support either contention. We affirm. DISCUSSION L.A.’s petition for a civil harassment restraining order ([L.A.] v. Brown (Super. Ct. San Luis Obispo County, 2021, No. 21CV-0020)), alleged, among other things, that Brown had racially profiled him and stalked him around the house. Brown responded by filing his own petition for a civil harassment restraining order against L.A. (Brown v. [L.A.] (Super. Ct. San Luis Obispo County, 2021, No. 21CV-0021)). Brown alleged that L.A.’s threatening and harassing behavior was witnessed by Jeremy Hall, another roommate, and by Tyler Stuart, L.A.’s legal guardian. Temporary restraining orders were granted in both cases. The cases were scheduled for hearing on February 5, 2021. Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (o) entitles the respondent, “as a matter of course, to one continuance, for a reasonable period, to respond to the petition.” Brown attempted to file a request to continue both hearings. The court’s docket reflects that the request to continue was “not filed” but does not state a reason. Brown contends the presentation of his request for a continuance with proof of service was sufficient for it to be filed, but he has not provided us with a copy of that request. He has