65 Cal.App.5th 1041
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Goals for Autism (employer) petitioned for a workplace violence restraining order against former employee Paul Rosas, alleging verbal harassment, threats, and that Rosas had firearms and caused A.K. panic attacks.
- The court denied a temporary restraining order but set a hearing for June 10, 2019; Rosas was personally served on June 1.
- Rosas filed a written opposition on June 7 denying the allegations, asserting improper purpose and seeking sanctions, and requested a two‑week continuance under § 527.8(o) because he was out of town.
- Rosas and his counsel did not appear at the hearing; the temporary judge denied the continuance request and—after hearing A.K.’s testimony—granted a two‑year workplace violence restraining order.
- On appeal Rosas challenged (1) the denial of a continuance under § 527.8(o), (2) alleged due process violation for lack of telephonic notice/phone call, and (3) constitutional defect from a temporary judge presiding without his stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 527.8(o) requires a court to grant a continuance to a respondent who has already filed a response | Goals: Court need not grant another continuance once respondent has responded | Rosas: § 527.8(o) confers an absolute right to one continuance regardless of whether respondent already responded | Court: § 527.8(o) grants one continuance to allow a respondent reasonable time to respond; once respondent has filed or otherwise made a response, the mandatory continuance entitlement ends |
| Whether denial of telephonic appearance or failure to call counsel violated due process | Goals: Court followed rules; telephonic appearance requires prior notice | Rosas: Denial/lack of phone call deprived him of hearing and due process | Court: No violation—Rosas did not comply with rule 3.670 notice requirements and offered only an untimely, unsworn office declaration |
| Whether temporary judge presiding without Rosas’s stipulation violated the constitution | Goals: Stipulation from appearing party suffices when other party has notice but is absent | Rosas: Temporary judge lacked authority absent his stipulation | Court: No violation—absent party with notice is not a "party litigant" for stipulation requirement; temporary judge properly acted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Figueroa, 139 Cal.App.4th 856 (2006) (construing similar mandatory‑continuance language and its purpose)
- Freeman v. Sullivant, 192 Cal.App.4th 523 (2011) (trial court discretion on continuances; no categorical right when respondent has responded)
- Phelps v. Stostad, 16 Cal.4th 23 (1997) (statutory construction principles; give effect to statutory language)
- Sarracino v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 1 (1974) (temporary judge may act without absent party’s stipulation where party had notice)
- USS‑Posco Indus. v. Edwards, 111 Cal.App.4th 436 (2003) (discussing the Workplace Violence Safety Act’s relationship to civil harassment statutes)