J.C. v. N.H. CA3

Filed 12/28/23 J.C. v. N.H. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

J.C.,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C094889

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21DV00768)

N.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court granted J.C. a three-year domestic violence restraining order against N.H., a man she dated for about four months. It dismissed N.H.’s requests for a restraining order against J.C. because N.H. left the trial before presenting evidence on the requests. N.H. appeals and represents himself in this court. To the extent his appellate contentions are not set forth under a separate heading or subheading, or are not supported by argument and citations to the record or authority, as required by the appellate rules of court, we do not consider them. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B); Opdyk v. California Horse Racing Bd. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1826, 1830, fn. 4; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247 (Nwosu).)

1

It appears N.H. now contends (1) the trial court should have granted his request for a continuance; (2) the trial court erred in finding he was a stalker and in ordering him to participate in therapy; (3) with regard to a May 7, 2021 hearing, the trial court should have sanctioned J.C. for recording the hearing and being coached, and it should have ruled on his motion; (4) with regard to a July 6, 2021 hearing, the trial court should have sanctioned J.C. for her failure to appear, and it should not have continued the hearing; and (5) this court should make factual determinations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 909.1

1 N.H. filed a December 27, 2022 request for judicial notice, asking this Court to take judicial notice of exhibits O [asserting that no California superior court has ever denied a request for a restraining order in a Domestic Violence Prevention Act case where the parties are unrepresented, the defendant is a man, and the plaintiff is a woman]; P [asserting that no California appellate court has ever reversed a Domestic Violence Prevention Act order in a case where the parties are unrepresented, the defendant is a man, and the plaintiff is a woman]; Q [asserting that Judge John Winn failed to notify the parties of the results of a criminal history search, as required under Family Code section 6306, and that N.H. had domestic violence restraining orders issued in his favor in two cases in 2016]; and R [Code of Civil Procedure section 909]. There is no document attached to exhibit O. The documents attached to exhibits P and Q do not show the facts of which N.H. asks this Court to take notice.