A case in the Riverside Superior court mirrors and expresses the vindictiveness of the Riverside Superior court judiciary against women. In this instance the Riverside Superior court is being used as a platform to “prevail” against a party when the party had little success in another court, the Orange County Superior Court.
That party obtained a restraining order in the Riverside Superior Court against the female party to obtain custody as the female party had a sole legal and sole physical custody order from the Orange County Superior Court. The restraining order was reversed completely as void in the Court of Appeal by Presiding Justice Ramirez, who DIRECTED the Riverside Superior Court to declare the Restraining Order as void as the court did not have the appropriate notice of stipulation for a commissioner. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/E060854.PDF
Instead the court persisted in setting a second permanent restraining order hearing on an exparte basis based on a “REVIEW OF THE REMITTITUR”. Although the permanent restraining order was “dismissed” at the second hearing, this quite clearly did not adhere to the intent and direction of Justice Ramirez in the published appeal, “DISPOSITION
The restraining order is reversed”.
The case docket reveals the violation of the law in general as a OSC RE CONTEMPT was approved for filing based on the alleged violation of the restraining order (which was subsequently declared void by the Court of Appeal). The initial OSC Re contempt was served by mail, which does not comply with the jurisdictional requirements to initiate a contempt action.
“An order to show cause to bring a party into contempt must be served on the alleged contemner in the same manner as a summons, i.e., by personal service on the contemner even if he or she is represented by counsel. See CCP §§1016–1017; Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v Superior Court (2000) 83 CA4th 1281, 1286–1288, 100 CR2d 320 (court does not have jurisdiction to proceed unless party charged is personally served with OSC). The order to show cause notifies the alleged contemner of the nature of the charges and the time of the hearing, and is the means for obtaining personal jurisdiction. Service of a subsequent order on the alleged contemner’s attorney is appropriate when the initial order to show cause was served on the contemner in the same manner as a summons. See In re Morelli (1970) 11 CA3d 819, 838, 91 CR 72.”
The court then reissued a “hearing” rather than the OSC RE contempt, a procedural requirement as the hearing for the OSC Re contempt was taken off calendar. This “hearing” was reissued on an FL 306 form and the reissued “hearing” was granted rather than a “reissued OSC contempt”.
The party who was alleged to be in contempt was released on their own recognizance based on the stipulation and agreement that complies with the law after the contempt proceeding as taken off calendar and the contempt was not reissued.
The court of course has a form addressing the release on own recognizance which is a mandatory requirement for any quasi-criminal proceeding http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/localfrms/ri-cr013.pdf
In another case in the Indio family law division, the Riverside Superior court judiciary refuses to address the mandatory procedural requirements associated with a release on own recognizance, (CA penal code section 1270), as the male party is protected at all cost which includes the non-adherence to procedural requirements to accommodate the male party. The other party is expected to file yet another motion to have the court adhere to the law, when the court violates all mandatory procedural requirements.