Dhillon v. Mangat CA1/4

Filed 5/31/23 Dhillon v. Mangat CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

PREET DHILLON, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162994 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. JASJIT MANGAT, No. HF19011485) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Jasjit Mangat (the former husband of plaintiff Preet Dhillon) appeals a trial court order renewing and making permanent a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) protecting Dhillon and the parties’ children from Mangat. Mangat principally contends the court erred by denying his requests for (1) a continuance of the renewal hearing, and (2) an evidentiary hearing on the renewal request. We affirm.

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to the 1

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

1

I. The record reveals the following.2 The trial court (Hon. Victor Rodriguez) entered the initial DVRO on May 13, 2019, for a term of two years. Prior to entering the DVRO, the court considered testimony and declarations from the parties, as well as in camera testimony from their then 13-year-old daughter. There was evidence that Mangat verbally, emotionally, and physically abused Dhillon and the parties’ daughter. The DVRO entered by the court prohibited Mangat from contacting Dhillon, temporarily suspended his contact with the parties’ daughter, and allowed professionally supervised visitation between Mangat and the parties’ then two-year-old son. On April 9, 2021, Dhillon filed a request to renew the DVRO, as well as a supporting declaration setting forth alleged misconduct by Mangat. The court (Hon. Somnath Raj Chatterjee) held a hearing on the request on May 3, 2021. Before and at the hearing, Mangat’s counsel requested that the court continue the hearing date and hold an evidentiary hearing “at least for half a day.” The court denied counsel’s requests, finding no good cause for a continuance. The court noted an evidentiary record had been developed at the 2019 hearing. The court stated in part: “There’s already been a trial. There’s already been a hearing on the petition. The facts are known, and the papers were served timely here. And the Court doesn’t see good cause for continuance.”