## Facts

- Tameka Ross and Oscar Figueroa were former live-in dating partners.
- Ross filed for protection under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) and a hearing on a longer-term order.
- On January 13, 2005, a commissioner issued the TRO ex parte and set a hearing for February 3, 2005.
- The DVPA forms provided directions about service timing and written responses.
- At the February 3, 2005 hearing, both parties appeared self-represented before a temporary referee; Ross was accompanied by her mother as a support person.
- The referee required Ross’s support person to sit in the audience rather than at counsel table.
- The transcript did not show that either party was sworn before presenting factual statements.
- Figueroa requested a continuance to obtain counsel or prepare; the referee denied the request and proceeded.
- The referee issued a three-year domestic violence restraining order against Figueroa.
- Figueroa appealed, arguing statutory error and denial of due process.

## Issues

1. Whether the referee erred by denying Figueroa a continuance to which he was entitled under the DVPA statutory scheme and applicable rules once he appeared to contest the requested long-term order.
2. Whether the hearing procedures used (including proceeding without sworn testimony and limiting meaningful presentation and testing of evidence) denied Figueroa due process given the significant consequences of a multi-year restraining order.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the three-year domestic violence restraining order.
- The court held the denial of a continuance violated Figueroa’s statutory rights and contributed to a proceeding that did not provide adequate due process.
- The case was remanded for a new hearing in which both parties would have a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and challenge the other side’s evidence.

## Legal Principles

- DVPA proceedings may be informal, but courts must still provide basic due process, including a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- When governing statutes and rules provide a respondent a right to a continuance in a DVPA matter, denial of that continuance—particularly where a multi-year order is sought—can be reversible error.
- The hearing record should reflect fundamental procedural safeguards, including taking testimony under oath and permitting both sides to present affirmative evidence and test the other party’s evidence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court set aside the three-year DVPA restraining order because the respondent was denied a continuance required by the governing scheme and was not afforded a fair hearing, and it remanded for a properly conducted evidentiary hearing with meaningful opportunities to present and challenge evidence.


Ross v. Figueroa, 139 Cal. App. 4th 856, 43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289 (Ct. App. 2006)