AVIVA MALATKA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTINE HELM, Defendant and Appellant., 188 Cal. App. 4th 1074

Summary

Defendant asserted that the trial court erred at the hearing on the initial order by refusing to consider declarations she had submitted and by denying her motion to strike one witness's testimony. The court concluded that to the extent the appeal from the order implicitly refusing to dissolve the restraining order presented issues that could have been raised in an appeal from the original restraining order, those issues were not reviewable. On the other hand, to the extent the motion to dissolve was dependent on new facts and law, such issues were reviewable. Any error by the trial court in refusing to consider the declarations of defendant's witnesses at the hearing on the initial order could have been raised in an appeal from the restraining order that was issued at the conclusion of that hearing. Defendant's notice of appeal did not purport to appeal from the initial restraining order or the first amended restraining order. Regarding the denial of defendant's motion to strike, ...