Javan v. Khanof CA4/3

Filed 11/10/26 Javan v. Khanof CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE MERCEDEH JAVAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, G065777 v. (Super. Ct. No. 24FL000292) AMIN KHANOF, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert F. Kohler, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Mercedeh Javan, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellants. Amin Khanof, in pro. per. for Defendant and Respondent.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mercedeh Javan and Amin Khanof are a divorced couple who share one minor child. In April 2024, Khanof and Javan sought competing restraining orders against each other. Two months later, the trial court granted Khanof’s request for a five-year restraining order against Javan. The restraining order included a custody and visitation order. In June 2025, the trial court granted Khanof’s request for an amended restraining order against Javan. The amended order also included a custody and visitation order. DISCUSSION Javan’s notice of appeal indicates she is appealing from two judgments. One judgment was entered on June 7, 2024, and the other on June 25, 2025. In her opening brief, however, Javan “challenges the June 7, 2024” restraining order only. Additionally, all Javan’s arguments on appeal focus on issues and alleged errors related to the 2024 restraining order, which was the subject of the appeal she herself dismissed on December 13, 2024. The dismissal of that appeal made the trial court’s June 7, 2024 order final and binding and therefore not subject to further inquiry. (Property Owners of Whispering Palms, Inc. v. Newport Pacific, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 666, 677; Estate of Basso (1947) 79 Cal.App.2d 758, 761.) To the extent Javan challenges the 2025 order, she does so only tangentially in the conclusion section of her opening brief. There, she asks us to vacate the 2024 order and “the custody and visitation orders entered in reliance on that ruling.” Javan provides no argument in support of her contention that we should vacate the 2025 order. An appellant must convince us, by reasoned legal analysis, that the trial court committed reversible error, and when an appellant fails to do so, we may reject the appellant’s argument 2 on its face as insufficient to demonstrate error. (Bishop v. The Bishop's School (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 893, 910; United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 146 [“‘[A]n appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record’”].) We therefore determine Javan has forfeited her arguments related to the 2025 order. 1 DISPOSITION The June 25, 2025, restraining order is affirmed. Khanof is awarded his costs on appeal. DELANEY, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: GOODING, J. MACAULAY, J. 1 Notwithstanding the existence of domestic violence restraining orders, the trial court retains jurisdiction and discretion to modify custody and visitation orders upon proper request by either party. 3