Hellwig v. Hammer CA2/1

Filed 4/22/13 Hellwig v. Hammer CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

KAREN HELLWIG, Trustee for Kathleen B235124 Ketcham Trust, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. YS022030)

v.

HERBERT B. HAMMER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marion Johnson, Judge. Affirmed. Herbert B. Hammer, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Karen Ketcham Hellwig, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

In this appeal from a restraining order, our affirmance is compelled without reaching the merits of the challenged order. The record on appeal contains the order and the notice of appeal, but nothing showing the grounds on which the order was sought, nothing showing the evidence supporting the order, and nothing showing the grounds on which the trial court relied in granting the order. The appellant’s presentation in this court more resembles an affidavit of facts and denials than an appellate brief. It contains no citations to the record or to the law, and it identifies nothing constituting error on the face of the record. Respondent’s brief, and the appellant’s late-filed reply, too, offer a narrative version of assertedly relevant facts. We therefore address only the issues that appear from the meager record. BACKGROUND On March 9, 2011, the superior court granted a restraining order against appellant Herbert B. Hammer, including personal conduct orders, stay-away orders, and a no-gun order. The personal conduct orders restrain Mr. Hammer for three years from physically or financially abusing, intimidating, molesting, attacking, assaulting (sexually or otherwise), hitting, following, stalking, threatening, harassing, destroying personal property, keeping under surveillance, or blocking movements of Kathleen T. Ketcham. The stay-away orders require Mr. Hammer to stay at least 100 yards from Ms. Ketcham and her vehicle. The no-gun order prohibits Mr. Hammer’s ownership or possession of a firearm.1 APPEALABILITY OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER Mr. Hammer filed his notice of appeal from the order, and his designation of the record on appeal, on August 5, 2011. The notice of appeal identifies the order from which the appeal is taken as an “order after judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1(a)(2),” entered March 9, 2011. However, only one order or judgment is