Sabato v. Brooks CA3
242 Cal. App. 4th 715
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order (DVPA) on Aug 16, 2013, and a hearing was set for Aug 28, 2013 in El Dorado County; the court later issued a three‑year restraining order.
- Plaintiff alleged repeated unwanted contacts (emails, texts, gifts), hacking into her accounts, and that defendant had a house key; she feared for her safety and sought protection for herself and two nieces.
- Defendant, who asserted he had moved to Abilene, Texas in May 2013 and never lived in El Dorado County, faxed opposition papers on the morning of the hearing claiming lack of personal jurisdiction and disputing the merits.
- The opposition was sent by fax to the court 32 minutes before the hearing; the clerk’s file does not show a file stamp and the judge did not reference the faxed papers at the hearing.
- El Dorado County local rules prohibit fax filing for family law restraining orders; defendant did not comply with local rules nor properly move to quash service under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10.
- The trial court found plaintiff’s evidence sufficient and issued the three‑year restraining order; defendant appealed arguing lack of jurisdiction and that the court ignored his opposition papers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction / service waiver | Court had jurisdiction; defendant failed to timely and properly move to quash | Brooks lived in Texas and El Dorado Superior Court lacked personal jurisdiction | Waiver: defendant failed to move to quash per CCP §418.10, so he waived the jurisdictional challenge |
| Consideration of opposition papers | Court properly may decline non‑conforming submissions | Court ignored Brooks’s opposition (faxed same morning) and refused to consider it | Court permissibly declined to consider faxed papers that violated local rule; even if ignored, error harmless |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DVPA order | Plaintiff’s repeated unwanted contacts, hacking indicators, gifts and possession of a key supported order | Defendant denied most allegations or characterized contacts as non‑threatening | Abuse of discretion standard; evidence of repeated, unwanted contacts supports issuance of the restraining order; order affirmed |
| Harmless error analysis | Any procedural misstep did not affect outcome | Exclusion of his papers prejudiced Brooks | No reasonable probability result would differ; any error was harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, 14 Cal.4th 434 (review courts generally consider only the record presented to the trial court)
- City of Riverside v. Horspool, 223 Cal.App.4th 670 (failure to move to quash constitutes waiver of personal jurisdiction issues)
- Nevarez v. Tonna, 227 Cal.App.4th 774 (standards for issuance of DVPA restraining orders)
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (trial courts’ inherent and statutory rulemaking authority)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for reversible error / prejudice analysis)