Darling v. Darling CA2/6

Filed 1/16/24 Darling v. Darling CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MARNI MARIE DARLING, 2d Civ. No. B323719 (Super. Ct. No. D363893) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

CHAD STEPHEN DARLING,

Defendant and Appellant.

Chad Darling appeals a trial court order denying his request for a continuance of trial on Marni Darling’s petition to dissolve their marriage.1 He contends the court deprived him of due process because he was unable to cross-examine Marni’s witnesses or object to evidence during trial. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Chad and Marni married in 2001. They had three children together, two of whom are minors. Throughout the marriage,

1 We refer to Marni and Chad Darling by their first names

for clarity and convenience. No disrespect is intended.

Chad ran a plastering company while Marni cared for their children. Marni contends Chad began abusing drugs in 2011. Marni asserts that in 2013 Chad checked into rehabilitation for the first of what would be six recovery attempts. During that time, the company did not have a bookkeeper so the job “kind of got thrown at [her].” She “took over the business side of . . . all of the office, invoicing estimates, [and] payroll.” Marni petitioned for dissolution of their marriage in 2014. Chad sent her threatening text messages while the matter was pending. One stated: “I’m always up for a good fight you can hire a lawyer you can come after me for anything you want. I’ll be sure to dissolve everything and break the bank . . . this thing will be drawn out so long that we will both be long broke by the time either one of us gets a judgment.” Marni obtained three temporary restraining orders against Chad. In October of 2021, the court issued a domestic violence restraining order protecting Marni and their children. That order remains in effect until 2026. The parties attended a trial setting conference on September 13, 2021, at which the trial court set a trial date and issued pretrial orders including that the parties were to exchange exhibit lists, exhibits and witness lists. A week later, Marni’s counsel sent Chad a notice of trial setting out the pretrial orders and notifying him of the December 9 trial date. Mark Piesner substituted in as Chad’s fourth attorney on December 3. Piesner contacted Marni’s counsel two days before trial to request that she stipulate to a continuance because he would be out of town and unable to attend. She declined. Piesner’s office then called the court the morning of trial “seeking a continuance on a representation that Mr. Darling ha[d] tested positive for COVID.” The court denied the request and informed them “that Mr. Piesner needed to make an