DISCUSSION

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, “[a] person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (a)(1).) “[U]pon the filing of a petition under this section, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition, temporary restraining order, if any, and notice of hearing of the petition.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (m)(1).) “ ‘ “Service of process is the means by which a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter asserts its jurisdiction over the party and brings home to him reasonable notice of the action.” ’ ” (Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v.

CH-109 is the form number for a Notice of Court Hearing, 3

CH-110 is the form number for a Temporary Restraining Order, and CH-100 is the form number for a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders.

3 Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 125, 139.) Ahluwalia’s sole argument on appeal is that, because she was not personally served with any pleadings, the order granting the request for a restraining order must be reversed. Presumably, she is contending the lack of personal service deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear and grant Aflalo’s request. We disagree. Ahluwalia claims that the process server “perjured himself” by attesting that he personally served her, and that she instead found a stack of documents left outside her apartment door, including “CH-109, CH-110, CH-100 and the Order on the Request to Continue TRO Hearing.” Ahluwalia cites nothing in the record to support this claim, and thus we deem it forfeited.4

Our independent examination of the record reveals 4

nothing to support Ahluwalia’s claim. Nor can Ahluwalia use “Addendum A” to the Civil Case Information Statement (her signed statement that she was not personally served) as support. Although the document was presented to us without context, we infer from the April 2022 date that it was created after the trial court order being appealed, and thus could not have been a part of the proceedings below. Even were we to consider the document as additional evidence under Code of Civil Procedure section 909, the Addendum’s failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5—the document states neither the place of execution nor that it was executed under penalty of perjury— deprives it of any evidentiary value. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5 [“Whenever . . . any matter is . . . permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same . . . , such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established or proved by (Fn. is continued on the next page.)

4 (United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 156 [“ ‘ “[i]f a party fails to support an argument with the necessary citations to the record, . . . the argument [will be] deemed to have been waived” ’ ”].) Even were Ahluwalia’s claim correct, a “procedural defense[]” like “lack of personal jurisdiction . . . is waived unless timely raised.” (Lackner v. LaCroix (1979) 25 Cal.3d 747, 751.) Nothing in the record indicates Ahluwalia raised the issue of defective service in the proceedings below. An appellant “has a duty to provide an adequate record on appeal to support his claim of error. [Citation.] In the absence of an adequate record, the judgment is presumed correct. [Citation.] ‘All intendments and presumptions are made to support the judgment on matters as to which the record is silent.’ ” (Roberson v. City of Rialto (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1507.) We must therefore presume she did not raise the issue before the trial court and has thus forfeited it on appeal. Moreover, the record reflects, and Ahluwalia does not deny, that she appeared at and participated in the hearing. By doing so, she waived any argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. (Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd., supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 139 [“ ‘a party may voluntarily submit himself to the

the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California”].)

5 jurisdiction of the court, or may, by failing to seasonably object thereto, waive his right to question jurisdiction over him. Process is waived by a general appearance, in person or by attorney, entered in the action . . .’ ”]; ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 210 [“ ‘ “A general appearance occurs when the defendant takes part in the action . . .” ’ ”].) We conclude that Ahluwalia has both forfeited and waived her only argument on appeal and has thus failed to demonstrate the trial court erred.

DISPOSITION

The court’s order is affirmed. Aflalo is awarded her costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

WEINGART, J.

6