Court Opinion

ID: 9889336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-09 17:04:13.466631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:46.365785
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/9/23 Akona v. Hupp CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 ROSE LEILANI AKONA

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E077897

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. CVMV2104200)

 PAUL HUPP,                                                              OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Belinda A. Handy,

Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

         Paul Hupp, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Defendant and appellant Paul Hupp (Hupp) appeals the grant of a civil harassment

restraining order ordering him to keep away from plaintiff and respondent Rose Leilani

Akona (Akona) for a period of three years expiring on October 4, 2023.

                                                             1
        On appeal, Hupp essentially contends the trial court violated his right to due

process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution by rejecting his

documents filed in opposition to the request for the restraining order, and by conducting

the restraining order hearing without securing his presence at the hearing. Akona has not

filed a response. We uphold the trial court’s order granting the restraining order.

                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        On September 14, 2021, Akona filed her request for civil harassment restraining

order (RO) seeking to require that Hupp stay at least 100 yards from her person, her

vehicle, her home, her two dogs, and her fiancée Karl Nicholson. Akona lived in

Beaumont and she provided that Hupp lived “two doors from my house.” Akona

provided in support of the RO that on September 5, 2021, Hupp had been cursing at one

of their neighbors; he told the neighbor he was going to kill her. Akona intervened and

told Hupp to stop and leave the neighbor alone. Hupp began cursing at Akona and told

her was going to kill her and her dogs. Akona believed Hupp was currently incarcerated

but she feared for her safety if he was released. In addition to the stay-away order, she

requested that Hupp also be ordered to have no indirect or direct contact with her. She

insisted that if the trial court issued the RO, Hupp would still be able to get to his home,

school or job. She requested also that a temporary restraining order be issued until the

hearing on the permanent restraining order could be held. Akona signed the request

under penalty of perjury. A temporary restraining order was granted on September 14,

2021.

                                              2
       The matter was called for hearing on October 5, 2021. Akona was present but

Hupp was not present. The trial court noted that it had a proof of service showing notice

of the hearing had been personally served on Hupp on September 16, 2021. As such, the

trial court would proceed without his presence.

       Akona advised the court that Nicholson was now her husband. Akona provided

further information regarding the incident. Hupp had verbally assaulted their 70-year-old

neighbor and when Akona intervened, Hupp threatened to kill her and her dogs. She took

the threat seriously. Two days after this incident, Hupp physically assaulted the

neighbor’s husband, resulting in him having to be taken to the hospital. Hupp was taken

to jail. The fact that Hupp followed through on his threats made her more fearful of him.

Akona offered to provide the court with the charges that Hupp was facing but the trial

court did not consider the documents.

       The trial court ruled that Akona had met her burden and granted the RO, which

would expire at midnight on October 4, 2023. The order applied to Akona, Nicholson,

her home, her vehicle, and her two dogs. The trial court modified the RO to order that

Hupp stay 10 yards away from Akona and her husband, rather than 100 yards, based on

them living close to each other. He also ordered that Hupp have no contact with Akona.

       Hupp filed a notice of appeal from the RO on October 13, 2021.

                                      DISCUSSION

       Hupp essentially argues on appeal that his right to due process afforded by the

Fourteenth Amendment was denied by the trial court proceeding with the hearing on the

RO without his presence, and by refusing to file his briefs in opposition. Initially, Hupp

                                             3
has failed to provide proper citations to the record and has provided no legal authority

supporting his claims. Moreover, the record does not support that Hupp filed any

opposition to the request for restraining order in the trial court. In addition, the trial court

properly proceeded with the hearing on the request for restraining order without Hupp

present at the hearing based on Hupp having been properly served.

       A.     WAIVER

       The only citations to the record in Hupp’s appellant’s opening brief are to the

request for restraining order filed by Akona and the RO. In addition, Hupp fails to cite to

any legal authority to support his claims, other than to the Fourteenth Amendment. He

provides no other authority to support what appears to be his arguments that the trial

court violated his due process rights by conducting the hearing on the RO without

securing his presence, and by rejecting his opposition briefs to the request for the

restraining order.

       On appeal, “ ‘A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct.’ ”

(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564; see also Gee v. American Realty &

Construction Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416.) “To demonstrate error, appellant

must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to

facts in the record that support the claim of error. [Citations.] When a point is asserted

without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without

foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.] Hence,

conclusory claims of error will fail.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) “A

party’s inaccurate or missing record citations ‘frustrates this court’s ability to evaluate

                                               4
which facts a party believes support his position.’ ” (Hernandez v. First Student, Inc.

(2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 270, 277.) “If a party fails to support an argument with the

necessary citations to the record, that portion of the brief may be stricken and the

argument deemed to have been waived.” (Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999)

72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856.) Finally, conclusory assertions that Hupp’s due process rights

were violated do not properly “ ‘ tender the issue for appellate review.’ “ (Philips v.

Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844, 853.)

       Hupp has failed to meet his burden of supporting his claims in the opening brief.

He fails to properly cite to the record to meet his burden of showing the trial court erred.

In addition, he fails to cite to any legal authority that would support his claims. Even

though Hupp is representing himself on appeal, we hold him to the same standards as we

do an attorney. (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) As

such, Hupp’s claims are waived on appeal.

       B.     THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT VIOLATE HUPP’S DUE PROCESS

              RIGHTS

       Even if this court were to find that Hupp has properly raised a claim that the trial

court violated his due process rights by rejecting his opposition briefs and failing to

secure his presence at the hearing on the RO, we would reject the claim.

       Under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (a)(1), “[a] person who

has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining

                                              5
order and an order after hearing prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.”1

“[U]pon the filing of a petition under this section, the respondent shall be personally

served with a copy of the petition, temporary restraining order, if any, and notice of

hearing of the petition. Service shall be made at least five days before the hearing.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (m)(1).)

       “Code of Civil Procedure, section 527.6 provides a quick, simple and truncated

procedure” when a party seeks to obtain a restraining order. This includes allowing a

party to submit hearsay evidence in support or opposition to the request for a restraining

order. (Yost v. Forestiere (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 509, 521.) “Under this less formal

approach to the admission of evidence, ‘[b]oth sides may offer evidence by deposition,

affidavit, or oral testimony, and the court shall receive such evidence, subject only to

such reasonable limitations as are necessary to conserve the expeditious nature of the

harassment procedure set forth by . . . section 527.6.” (Ibid.) A person charged with

harassment “ ‘ may file a response that explains, excuses, justifies, or denies the alleged

harassment, or may file a cross-petition.’ ” (Id. at p. 522.) A party may respond to the

request for a restraining order “in writing or orally at the hearing.” (Goals for Autism v.

Rosas (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1041, 1045.)

       “Due process requires ‘the right to be heard in a meaningful manner.’ ” (In re

Marriage of D.S. and A.S. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 926, 935; see also Alviso v. Sonoma

       1 Subdivision (b)(3) of section 527.6 defines harassment as “unlawful violence, a
credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a
specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no
legitimate purpose.”

                                              6
County Sheriff’s Dept. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 198, 209 [“The fundamental requirements

of procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard”].) “The due process

requirement applies to restraining orders.” (CSV Hospitality Management LLC v. Lucas

(2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 117, 124; see also Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn.

(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 719, 732-733.)

       Hupp insists he attempted to file an opposition brief and a supplemental opposition

brief in the trial court, which were rejected and returned to him. While Hupp certainly

was entitled to present his case to the trial court in written form, there is no evidence that

he actually submitted the brief and supplemental brief to the trial court. In his opening

brief, Hupp claims he was in the Banning jail when the request for restraining order was

submitted to the trial court.2 Hupp insists that he filed two legal briefs in opposition to

the request and that they were both received by the trial court. In his opening brief, Hupp

states the opposition brief was received by the trial court on September 23, 2021, and the

supplemental letter brief was received on September 28, 2021. The trial court mailed

back his briefs without filing them. In Hupp’s motion to augment the record with the two

briefs, he states the trial court received the opposition brief on September 22, 2021, and

the supplemental brief on September 28, 2021. They were mailed back by the trial court

on December 28, 2021. He admits that there is no notation in the register of actions that

the briefs were received or lodged, and there is not a court date stamp on the documents.

       2 Hupp does not claim that he was improperly served in this case.

                                              7
       The first opposition brief includes just a date stamp of “Sep 22 2021” but it is not

clear where the date stamp was obtained. In the opposition brief, Hupp presented his

account of what happened with his neighbor and Akona. He also stated, “I would like to

testify at hearing, please arrange with sheriff for transportation for appearing 10-5-21.”

A supplemental letter brief with a date stamp “Sep 28 2021,” again of unknown origin,

provided that Akona had committed perjury in her request for the restraining order. He

again requested to be transported for the hearing.

       In his notice designating the record on appeal, Hupp requested that the opposition

brief and supplemental letter brief be made a part of the record on appeal. The clerk of

the court specified that they could not be included in the record because there was no

filing date provided and they could not be found.

       We have reviewed the register of actions for this case. The register of actions does

not reflect that these documents were ever lodged or filed in the trial court and then

rejected. The register of actions shows a proof of personal service of the request for the

restraining order was filed on September 20, 2021. The next action occurred on October

5, 2021, the date of the hearing. Nothing was filed, lodged or rejected in the case on the

dates of September 22, September 23 or September 28, 2021.

       In the motion to augment, Hupp insists that the opposition brief and supplemental

letter brief were returned to him on December 28, 2021. In the register of actions, the

notation for December 28, 2021, simply states, “Notice of Document Return.” There is

no further explanation as to what these documents were or to whom they were returned.

                                             8
We simply cannot speculate that the documents returned were the opposition and

supplemental briefs.

       The record does not support that Hupp actually filed the opposition brief and

supplemental letter brief in the trial court; nor does the record support that the trial court

rejected the briefs. We note that Hupp had no trouble properly filing his notice of appeal

with the trial court. As such, Hupp cannot establish his due process rights were violated

as he cannot meet his burden of establishing his opposition briefs were actually received

and rejected by the trial court.3

       Hupp also insists that the trial court should have secured his presence at the RO

hearing. He claims that he informed the trial court that he wanted to be present at the

hearing or at the very least appear by telephone. However, we have rejected that the

evidence supports that the trial court ever received the opposition brief or supplemental

letter brief advising the trial court that he wanted to be transferred for the hearing or

appear by telephone. As such, the trial court was unaware that Hupp was seeking to be

transferred from custody to be present at the hearing.

       At the hearing, the trial court noted “I do have a proof of service that’s on file.

That was filed on September 20th showing that [Hupp] was personally served on

September 16, 2021; therefore, this Court does have jurisdiction to move forward.” The

trial court had evidence that Hupp had been properly served with the request for

       3 Since the opposition brief and supplemental letter brief are not part of the record
from the trial court, we deny Hupp’s request to augment the record or take judicial notice
of the briefs.

                                               9
restraining order and had notice of the hearing date. The trial court could properly

conclude that Hupp chose not to be present at the hearing despite receiving notice of the

hearing.4 Hupp has not met his burden of showing that his due process rights were

violated.

                                       DISPOSITION

       The order of the trial court is affirmed in full. Hupp is to bear his own costs on

appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                         MILLER
                                                                                            J.

We concur:

McKINSTER
                       Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                                  J.

       4 Akona represented in the request for restraining order and at the hearing that she
believed Hupp was incarcerated. However, the trial court never received notice from
Hupp that he was, in fact, in custody or that he wished to appear telephonically.

                                             10