Filed 5/27/20 Adams v. Jackson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MICHELE ADAMS,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ELEANOR JACKSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

B296288

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. 18STRO07316)

APPEAL from the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Alexander C.D. Giza, Judge. Affirmed

Eleanor Jackson, in pro. per.; Horvitz & Levy and Rebecca Powell for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *

Defendant and appellant Eleanor Jackson appeals from an order granting a civil harassment restraining order in favor of plaintiff and respondent Michele Adams. We affirm.

Defendant is plaintiff’s tenant. The parties apparently have a long history of not getting along. We need not summarize most of the facts related to the parties’ contentious landlord/tenant relationship.

The sole issue presented is whether the court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a continuance of the hearing on the restraining order.

In October 2018, plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order against defendant requiring defendant to stay at least five yards away from plaintiff and to refrain from harassing, intimidating or threatening her. Defendant, representing herself, filed a response denying she had ever harassed plaintiff. Plaintiff was granted a temporary restraining order. Thereafter, defendant’s request for a continuance of the hearing on the permanent order was granted and the hearing was continued to February 21, 2019.

On the morning of February 21, 2019, defendant requested another continuance of the hearing. Defendant told the court that she had spoken with an attorney who was sick and not present. Defendant conceded the attorney had not filed an appearance on behalf of defendant in this case.

Plaintiff told the court she was ready to proceed and had subpoenaed a witness, who was present but reluctant to testify. The witness’s testimony was important because he saw the altercation that gave rise to the request for a restraining order. Plaintiff expressed concern about being able to compel his attendance at a later date. The court denied the continuance request and proceeded with the hearing.

The hearing on the restraining order lasted two days, with both sides calling multiple witnesses, conducting cross-examination and presenting exhibits. Defendant believed plaintiff was stealing electricity that was intended for her unit and diverting it to another vacant unit in the building, so she placed a padlock on the electrical panel. When plaintiff arrived and tried to cut off the padlock with bolt cutters, defendant attempted to grab the bolt cutters from her, causing multiple bruises on plaintiff’s arms. Police were called to the property. Other incidents that occurred when plaintiff went to the property were also described and included defendant following plaintiff around the property and harassing her. Plaintiff attested to being in fear of defendant, as did her electrician who refused to perform any further work at the property because of defendant’s behavior.

The court heard closing arguments from both sides. The court then granted plaintiff’s request for a civil harassment restraining order, finding clear and convincing evidence supporting plaintiff’s request for relief. The court ordered the restraining order would remain in effect for one year, expiring on February 22, 2020. Defendant was ordered not to harass, intimidate or assault plaintiff, take any action to obtain plaintiff’s address or location, and stay at least five yards away from her at all times. The court further ordered that the order did “not include a move out order, nor should it be used to effectuate a move out or constructive eviction.”

We granted defendant’s request to augment the record with additional documents presented to the court in connection with the restraining order. We also requested supplemental letter briefs from the parties as to whether the appeal had been mooted by the expiration of the restraining order on February 22, 2020, during the pendency of this appeal.

“[A] case that presents a true controversy at its inception becomes moot ‘ “if before decision it has, through act of the parties or other cause, occurring after the commencement of the action, lost that essential character.” ’ ” (Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1573.)

The restraining order has expired by its own terms and there is nothing in the record to indicate plaintiff sought any renewal. In her supplemental brief, defendant claims only that she will be prejudiced by the existence of the restraining order in the public record because she is subject to background checks in her work as a home health care worker.

We believe the appeal has been mooted, but we will exercise our discretion to resolve the appeal on its merits.

Defendant has not shown any abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying her request for a continuance of the hearing. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (p), defendant was required to demonstrate good cause for her requested continuance. This she did not do. Nor has she shown here that she was denied a fair hearing as a result of the court’s denial. Defendant participated fully in the two-day hearing, presenting witnesses, her own testimony and various documents.

“A judgment is reversible only if any error or irregularity in the underlying proceeding was prejudicial. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.) Therefore, any error in failing to grant a request for a continuance—whether mandatory or discretionary—is reversible only if it is tantamount to the denial of a fair hearing. [Citations.] There is no presumption of prejudice. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.) Instead, the burden to demonstrate prejudice is on the appellant.” (Freeman v. Sullivant (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 523, 527-528, fns. omitted.)

DISPOSITION

The court’s order of February 22, 2019, granting a civil harassment restraining order in favor of plaintiff and respondent Michele Adams is affirmed.

Plaintiff and respondent shall recover costs of appeal.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

STRATTON, J.