Welch v. Suess

Filed 8/17/06 Welch v. Suess CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CAROL WELCH, et al., H028890

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Santa Cruz County

Superior Court

v. Nos. CV151286, CV151287)

DANIEL SUESS,

Defendant and Appellant.

_____________________________________/

Plaintiffs Carol Welch and Rowena Fulk filed applications for restraining orders against defendant Daniel Suess. The trial court granted the applications. On appeal, Suess contends: (1) the trial court erred by denying his requests for a continuance; (2) he was deprived of due process when the trial court limited the time for presentation of his case; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the orders. We find no error and affirm.

I. Statement of Facts

Welch testified that she and Suess lived in the same condominium complex. Welch was on the board of directors of the homeowners' association for the complex. About five years ago, the board of directors notified Suess that he had violated some of the organization's rules. Since that time, Suess retaliated by swearing at Welch, calling her a â€