Haile v. Haile CA1/1

Filed 10/26/23 Haile v. Haile CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

EDEN HAILE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167562 v. TSEGAI HAILE, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SFL-090902) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Tsegai Haile purports to appeal from several orders entered in the dissolution proceedings initiated by his wife, respondent Eden Haile.1 Most of those orders were not appealable. And to the extent one of them was, Tsegai offers no reasoned argument why it should be reversed. We therefore reject Tsegai’s arguments. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Tsegai and Eden were married in January 1996. Tsegai in April 2022 filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against Eden, and the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). That same month, Eden filed a divorce petition. For the date of separation, she listed

1 We refer to the parties by their first names in the interest of clarity.

1

April 8, 2022, the date she left the marital home because Tsegai had sought a TRO. Following a hearing, the trial court in August 2022 denied the request for a restraining order and awarded Eden her attorney fees. Tsegai did not appeal from the order. Tsegai’s legal representation has changed several times. He was at first self-represented. As of late 2022 he had changed legal representation three times. He is self-represented in this appeal. A dispute arose about discovery into the community interest in the family residence and, in September 2022, Eden filed a motion to compel the production of documents, which Tsegai opposed. By order filed in November 2022, the trial court granted the motion in part and ordered Tsegai to pay Eden $1,060 in sanctions. Following the order, Eden’s attorney contacted Tsegai’s attorney and requested compliance by mid-December 2022. Before the requested deadline, Eden’s counsel received a substitution of attorney replacing Tsegai as a self- represented party. Tsegai provided an amended discovery response by the end of December but provided no further information. Eden then issued subpoenas to three financial institutions for production of business records. Also in December 2022, Tsegai filed a motion to bifurcate “the issue of the parties’ date of separation for a separate and early trial,” and requested sanctions. The motion requested a determination that the parties’ separation date was March 1, 2002 (sic). Eden opposed the bifurcation request, which the trial court denied. In January 2023, Tsegai filed a motion to quash the subpoenas for business records. He also sought sanctions against Eden and her attorney.