Filed 1/13/22 Jane v. Morning CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULINA JANE, H047214 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 17DV000696) v. WILLIAM CHARLES MORNING, Defendant and Respondent. Appellant Paulina Jane appeals from an order denying her request to renew a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.).1 Jane contends the trial court failed to apply the correct standard in analyzing whether she met her burden to obtain a renewal of the restraining order against respondent William Charles Morning, with whom Jane previously had a dating relationship. Because we conclude the trial court applied the correct standard, we affirm the order. 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Family Code. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 The parties met in December 2016, when Morning responded to Jane’s advertisement listing a room for rent in her residence. Morning signed a six-month lease and moved into the room. Shortly thereafter, Morning and Jane became romantically involved. The dating relationship lasted about three months. According to Jane, Morning prematurely vacated the residence without notice, and despite later providing assurances that he would honor the lease, failed to do so. Jane ultimately filed a small claims lawsuit in May 2017 to recover from Morning the rent owed and the cost of items she alleged he had taken. In September 2017, after certain encounters with Morning (described in more detail below), Jane filed in family court a request for a domestic violence restraining order. The trial court held a trial on the restraining order request and, on February 6, 2018, granted Jane a one-year restraining order that would expire on February 6, 2019. On February 1, 2019, Jane filed a request to renew the restraining order prior to its expiration (renewal request). In support of her request, Jane stated that she feared future abuse due to a pending civil case she had filed against Morning. The renewal request asserted that “[i]n the event the restraining order expires while the civil case remains open, [Jane] fears that Mr. Morning will begin harassing and threatening [Jane]’s safety.” The trial court extended the original restraining order, pending the hearing on the renewal request, which was continued to June 2019. On June 12, 2019, Jane, who was represented by counsel, and Morning, who was self-represented, appeared for a hearing on the renewal request. Jane testified that she feared future harm, if the restraining order were not renewed, based on the history of 2 The facts and procedural background are taken from the limited record on appeal, consisting of the request to renew restraining order, filed by Jane in February …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals