Filed 6/2/22 Owens v. Simonet CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

CHRISTINE OWENS,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

MAHERSHAL SIMONET,

 Defendant and Respondent.

2d Civil No. B315204

(Super. Ct. No. D401700)

(Ventura County)

Christine Owens appeals from the order dissolving a

temporary restraining order (TRO) and dismissing her petition

for a restraining order. She contends the trial court erred in 

ruling against her based on her absence at the hearing. We 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Owens filed a request for a domestic violence 

restraining order against Mahershal Simonet. The trial court 

issued a TRO and ordered that it would expire at the end of the 

hearing scheduled for July 9, 2021. At her request, the hearing 

was continued to August 6, and the TRO was extended to that 
2

date.

Owens’s attorney sent her an email that stated in 

part: “For the August 6, 2021 hearing, if you are not going to be 

there, the clerk said the Judge can make a decision by ruling on 

the pleadings (based on everything you submitted in writing 

without testimony).” Owens filed several declarations.

On August 6, Simonet testified through video 

conferencing. Owens did not appear. The court ordered the TRO 

dissolved and the petition dismissed with prejudice.

DISCUSSION

Owens contends the trial court erred by dissolving

the temporary restraining order and dismissing her petition after 

she failed to appear at the hearing. No error has been shown.

“‘We review an appeal from an order denying a 

request to renew a domestic violence restraining order for abuse 

of discretion.’” (In re Marriage of Martindale & Ochoa (2018) 30 

Cal.App.5th 54, 59.) Likewise, the “denial of a permanent 

injunction . . . will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of 

a clear abuse of discretion. . . . ‘[T]o the extent the trial court had 

to review the evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, and 

draw inferences from the presented facts, [we] review such 

factual findings under a substantial evidence standard.’” 

(Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University

(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 390.)

The TRO expired at the end of the hearing on August 

6. A party seeking to extend a TRO has the burden to establish 

that they still have “a ‘reasonable apprehension’ of future abuse.” 

(Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290.) 

The only record of the August 6 hearing is the minute 

order. It does not state that the court’s order was based on 
3

Owens’s absence at the hearing, or whether the court considered 

documents Owens had submitted. A court reporter was present, 

but Owens elected to proceed on appeal without a record of the 

oral proceedings.

“The trial court’s order ‘is presumed to be correct, and 

all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on 

matters as to which the record is silent. [Citation.] It is the 

appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.’” (In re 

Marriage of Martindale & Ochoa, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 54, 59.) 

Because the appellate record is silent as to what evidence the 

trial court considered, and the reasons for its ruling, Owens has 

failed to demonstrate error. We must therefore affirm.

Owens additionally contends that several individuals 

and entities committed crimes and invites this court to 

investigate those alleged crimes. Because we lack the authority 

to conduct criminal investigations, we must decline this 

invitation.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J.
William R. Redmond, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Christine Owens, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and 

Appellant. 

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.