Filed 7/21/26 Catalan v. Griffith CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR
DORIS JANETTE CATALAN, B340980
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24PSRO01143)
v.
JENNIFER RUTH GRIFFITH,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Michelle Graves-Bryant, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer Ruth Griffith, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
This is an appeal from the trial court’s ruling on competing applications
for restraining orders from two sisters, appellant Jennifer Ruth Griffith and
respondent Doris Janette Catalan. The sisters and their children lived
together in their mother’s house; each sister has two children. On July 12,
2024, after a contested hearing, the court denied the order requested by
Griffith and granted the order requested by Catalan, restraining Griffith
from approaching Catalan, Catalan’s children, or the family dog. On
September 24, 2024, after both Catalan and Griffith had moved out of their
mother’s home, the court modified the order to allow Griffith to be in the
home while Catalan’s children were staying with the neighbor for childcare,
and to allow Griffith to be near the family dog.
Griffith objects to four alleged errors in the court’s proceedings. First,
she complains that the trial court accepted hearsay testimony that Griffith
had grabbed the arm of Catalan’s daughter, leaving a red mark. The trial
court accepted this statement from Catalan’s daughter as a spontaneous
statement, which is an exception to the hearsay rule under Evidence Code
section 1240. According to Catalan, her daughter came in immediately after
the event, appearing to be frustrated and upset, and reported that Griffith
had grabbed her. Catalan then took a picture of the mark, which was
introduced as an exhibit.
We review the court’s admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.
(People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 413–414 (Mataele).) We see no error
1 We resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.) We summarize the factual and procedural background
because the parties are familiar with those details and our opinion is
unpublished. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)
Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.
2
here. Section 1240 permits the introduction of a statement that narrates or
describes an event perceived by the declarant, and that is made
spontaneously while under the stress of excitement from the event. Here,
there was testimony that Catalan’s daughter made the statement
immediately after being grabbed, while under the stress of the event.
Catalan testified that she herself took the photo that was submitted. There
was sufficient foundation for this evidence, and section 1240 applies.
Second, Griffith objects that Catalan submitted dependency minute
orders as evidence and the trial court never struck those orders. It is true
that Catalan submitted at least one dependency minute order as evidence,
and that the trial court did not strike that evidence. However, Griffith makes
no showing that the trial court considered or relied on the minute orders in
making its findings. Therefore, she has not met her burden to show
prejudice. (See Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2025) 114
Cal.App.5th 569, 588 (Brockman) [appellant has the burden to show
prejudice].)
Third, Griffith argues that the trial court should not have relied on a
video clip Griffith showed without audio. Again, we see no abuse of
discretion. (See Mataele, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 413—414.) When Griffith
played the video, the court inquired about sound. Griffith responded that
there did not seem to be any sound, and explained that “sometimes the app
does that. It just doesn’t play sound.” The court viewed the film, hearing
Griffith’s commentary and questioning her about it. At no point during the
presentation did Griffith ask the court for a continuance or suggest that the
video was inadequate without the audio.2 This was Griffith’s evidence,
2 Griffith raised this issue for the first time with the trial court on the
motions for reconsideration and modification, made September 24, 2024.
3
originally offered by Griffith without audio. Even if we concluded the
admission of this evidence was error (and we do not), the error was invited by
Griffith, and therefore may not be asserted by her on appeal. (Doe WHBE 3
v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1135, 1152.)
Finally, Griffith contends the trial court improperly relied on the
results of a criminal records search conducted pursuant to Family Code
section 6306. Family Code section 6306, subdivision (a), requires the conduct
of such a search, and Family Code section 6306, subdivision (b), requires the
court to consider certain results of the search. The parties have a right to
request any information on which the court relied, but it will not become part
of the public file. (Fam. Code, § 6306, subds. (c) & (d).) Nothing in the record
indicates that Griffith requested the information on which the court relied, or
that the trial court misused that information. Therefore, Griffith has failed
to meet her burden of showing error on this point. (See Brockman, supra,
114 Cal.App.5th at p. 588.)
In sum, Griffith has demonstrated only one potential error by the trial
court—the failure to strike juvenile court orders from evidence. However,
Griffith has failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. Therefore, we
affirm.
This was simply too late. Reconsideration requires the presentation of new
material, along with an explanation of why the material was not presented
earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 689.)
4
DISPOSITION
The orders of the trial court are affirmed. Respondent may recover her
costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ZUKIN, P. J.
We concur:
MORI, J.
TAMZARIAN, J.
5