Meyners v. Bolanos CA2/8

Filed 1/30/24 Meyners v. Bolanos CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MICHAEL WAYNE MEYNERS, B321781

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 20IWRO00546)

HUGO RICARDO BOLANOS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Patricia J. Titus, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Marcus Gomez and Marcus Gomez for Defendant and Appellant. The Law Office of Negin Yamini and Negin Yamini for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Hugo Ricardo Bolanos, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside a civil harassment restraining order against him, which protects Michael Wayne Meyners. Because Bolanos has not shown the trial court erred, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 27, 2020, the trial court issued a three-year civil harassment restraining order against Bolanos under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, protecting Meyners. In March 2022, Bolanos moved to set aside the restraining order. Bolanos argued the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him when it issued the restraining order, because he was not properly served with notice that the restraining order hearing had been continued. In support of his motion, Bolanos relied on the fact that the process server failed to indicate on the proof of service that Bolanos received a copy of the notice of continued hearing. Meyners opposed the motion asserting, among other things, that Bolanos had actual and constructive knowledge of the restraining order hearing, and that the motion should be denied because Bolanos failed to provide a supporting declaration stating he was not actually served with the notice of the continued hearing. The trial court denied the requested relief, finding Bolanos failed to provide any evidence he was not actually served with the notice of the continued hearing. Bolanos appealed. DISCUSSION I. The appeal is not moot As a threshold matter, we must first determine whether Bolanos’s appeal should be dismissed as moot given the restraining order expired on August 27, 2023, while this appeal was pending. We invited the parties to file supplemental briefing