Cattlemens v. Sanchez CA5
F087774
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- In June 2020, Cattlemens, an employer, obtained a Workplace Violence Restraining Order (WVRO) against Miguel Sanchez for harassing and threatening employees, based on allegations that Sanchez, delusional about owning the business, made repeated threats and disruptive actions.
- A temporary restraining order (TRO) was first granted in June 2020, followed by a permanent WVRO issued in August 2020 for a five-year term, after Sanchez did not appear at the hearing.
- In August 2022, Sanchez requested termination of the WVRO, claiming fraud and lack of authorization, but did not serve Cattlemens or the protected employees as required.
- At the September 2022 hearing, neither party appeared, and the court dismissed the case and dissolved the TRO in a minute order, but this action was allegedly inadvertent.
- In March 2024, the court set aside its prior dismissal and clarified the WVRO remained in force, leading Sanchez to appeal, asserting procedural and substantive errors by the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2020 WVRO issuance | Proper under evidence and legal procedure | Order was unlawful and unauthorized | Appellate court has no jurisdiction; not timely appealed |
| Setting aside of September 2022 dismissal | Proper as correction of clerical error | No proper motion; denied participation | Upheld as valid exercise of court’s inherent powers |
| Effect of lack of notice/service for termination req. | Sanchez did not effect service, so dismissal correct | Should have been opportunity to be heard | Court required to deny/continue; no prejudice shown |
| Duration of WVRO (5 vs. 3 years) | Not subject to review; unappealed order | WVRO exceeds statutory duration | Not reached; court lacked jurisdiction to review |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (California 'one shot' rule for appealable orders)
- Conservatorship of Tobias, 208 Cal.App.3d 1031 (clarifying court’s power to correct clerical versus judicial errors)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (presumption of correctness of trial court orders; burden on appellant)
- Pettigrew v. Grand Rent-A-Car, 154 Cal.App.3d 204 (distinguishing clerical from judicial errors and correcting judgments)