Opinion
G057262
11-25-2019
JAMES FRANK FARRIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RICHARD HURD HANSON, Defendant and Respondent.
James Frank Farris, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-01003490) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Carl Biggs, Judge. Dismissed. James Frank Farris, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
Plaintiff James Frank Farris challenges a trial court's denial of his request for a civil harassment restraining order. Because Farris' notice of appeal was filed more than 180 days after the trial court's denial order, we dismiss his appeal as untimely. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C), (c)(2), (e).)
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Civil Harassment Restraining Order Application
On July 6, 2018, Farris filed a request for civil harassment restraining orders, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, to be issued against his next door neighbor defendant Richard Hurd Hanson. Farris requested the court to restrain Hanson's personal conduct, including staying at least 15 yards from Farris, his wife, their dog, and his property, among other things. Farris alleged Hanson had engaged in prior violent and otherwise inappropriate conduct toward Farris and others in the neighborhood.
Farris requested both a temporary restraining order and order after hearing. --------
On July 24, 2018, the trial court held a hearing wherein Farris and Hanson appeared and testified. After hearing testimony and receiving exhibits from both parties, the court denied Farris' request without prejudice and entered a minute order documenting the ruling. The record does not indicate whether formal notice of the denial order was served on Farris. Farris filed a notice of appeal 184 days after the order was entered, on January 24, 2019. Hanson has not appeared for the appeal of this case.
II
DISCUSSION
Absent circumstances not implicated here, a notice of appeal from a final order must be filed within 180 days, at the latest. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C), (c)(2), (e).) Farris did not file his notice of appeal in this case until more than 180 days had lapsed since the trial court denied his July 2018 request for a civil harassment restraining order. Accordingly, regardless of whether the trial court committed error in denying Farris' July request, we lack jurisdiction to entertain Farris' untimely appeal. (Hollister Convalescent Hosp., Inc. v. Rico (1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 666-667.)
III
DISPOSITION
Farris' appeal from the trial court's order denying his July 2018 request is dismissed as untimely. As there has been no appearance by Hanson, no costs are awarded on appeal.
MOORE, J., ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J. FYBEL, J.