Baxter

Baxter v. Hemphill CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 2025C100977California1,648 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

We have very little information about the underlying action because the record on appeal is sparse. Much of the information we have about the underlying case comes solely from Hemphill’s opening brief rather than from the record on appeal. Although the

1 opening brief references a motion to augment the record, no such motion was filed.1 “It is axiomatic that the unsworn statements of counsel [made in a brief] are not evidence.” (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 414, fn. 11; see also Acqua Vista Homeowners Assn. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1158, fn. 43 [statements made by counsel “clearly do not constitute evidence”].) From the record we do have, it appears that Gail Baxter filed a request for an elder abuse restraining order against Hemphill on October 5, 2023; the request is not part of the record. (We note such requests are governed by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.03, which is part of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act). The court issued a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing for October 23, and Hemphill filed a response prior to the hearing; the temporary restraining order and the response were also not included…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.