Swersky

INTRODUCTION

In the trial court, Swerksy represented himself, and in this appeal he has not filed

an appearance.1 In the trial court, Seymour did not make an appearance until after the

Order was entered against her, and in this appeal she is representing herself. Seymour's

brief is difficult to follow and fails to comply with the basic procedural requirements in

the California Rules of Court, most particularly rule 8.204(a) and (b). Rather than return

or strike the brief, however, we exercise our discretion to disregard the noncompliance

and to reach the merits of Seymour's appeal. (Id., rule 8.204(e).) In part, we base this

decision on our ability to determine what happened in the trial court from our review of

the clerk's transcript.

We understand Seymour's argument to be that the Order is void for lack of

personal jurisdiction, because she was not served with process advising her of either the

facts and claim that Swersky alleged against her or the date and time of the hearing on

Swersky's request for a domestic violence restraining order.

BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2013, Swersky filed a request for a domestic violence restraining

order…