J.K. v. Hernandez CA1/3

Filed 12/1/23 J.K. v. Hernandez CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

J.K., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A166385

Cynthia Sue Hernandez, (Sonoma County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SCV-270507)

Cynthia Sue Hernandez purports to appeal from three orders: (1) May 6, 2022 order granting a restraining order against her under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600, et seq.1); (2) May 9, 2022 order amending the May 6 order; and (3) September 30, 2022 order continuing a hearing on her motion “to set aside default and default judgment, if entered,” and “to quash service of summons” (set aside motion). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. “Rule” references are to the California Rules of Court. 2 We deny Hernandez’s request for judicial notice of other litigation between the parties as irrelevant. (Coastside Fishing Club v. California Fishing & Game Commission (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 397, 429.)

1

BACKGROUND All dates are in 2022. On April 4, J.K. filed a form petition for an elder abuse restraining order against Hernandez under section 15657.03.3 The court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and noticed a hearing for May 6. J.K. filed a proof of service, indicating Hernandez had been personally served on April 25 with various documents, including the petition, TRO, and notice of hearing (petition papers). On May 6, the trial court held a hearing at which Hernandez did not appear. The court considered the testimony of several witnesses, including the person who served Hernandez with the petition papers. The court found Hernandez had been personally served with the petition papers and it issued a five-year restraining order. On May 9, the court filed an “Amended” order adding a condition requiring Hernandez to attend an anger management course; no other changes were made. That same day, the superior court deputy clerk mailed the parties both filed-endorsed copies of the May 6 and May 9 orders (collectively, May orders) and proofs of service. On July 27, Hernandez filed a motion to vacate the May orders for lack of personal service of the petition papers. The hearing on the motion was continued from September 2 to October 5. On September 30, the court granted J.K.’s ex parte request for a new date and the hearing was continued from October 5 to October 26 (September order).