TRO dismissed where plaintiff did not show up for hearing K.M. v. A.M.

K.M. v. A.M.

NO. A-0162-14T2.

K.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.M., Defendant-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided October 8, 2015.

K.M., appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
Before Judges Leone and Higbee.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his complaint seeking a final restraining order (FRO). His complaint was dismissed for failure to appear at the hearing. We affirm.

Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against his ex-wife on June 24, 2014. On July 2, 2014, the parties appeared for an FRO hearing, which was adjourned to July "ABSOLUTELY NO FURTHER ADJOURMENTS." The same day, plaintiff was arrested on an outstanding warrant and released the next day. He alleges the warrant was issued in error, and the arrest caused him to suffer injuries described by him as a heart attack and a stroke, but attaches no medical documentation to support his claims.

On July 10, plaintiff sought and was given another adjournment until July 21, 2014. The July 10 order included the following: "Plaintiff was told that this case will not be adjourned for any reason whatsoever. 3rd time defendant has appeared."

On July 21, 2014, defendant was present in court for the hearing but plaintiff did not appear. The judge called plaintiff on the telephone. Plaintiff explained on the phone he was going to have a friend hand-deliver a letter to the judge. Plaintiff claimed that his wife had intimidated his lawyer into quitting, that his wife was threatening him, and that he could not appear for the hearing because he was afraid of being arrested again if he operated his car as his license had been suspended. The judge advised plaintiff to have the friend bring him to the hearing instead of delivering the letter.

The TRO was entered to provide him protection from defendant's threats, and the purpose of the hearing was to make this protection permanent. He would not have been required to operate his car if he arranged for alternative transportation. He offered a litany of excuses, but none justified his absence in light of the case's prior adjournment history. It was his obligation to appear in court, and he failed to do so.

We find the judge properly vacated the TRO and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for an FRO. Plaintiff argues: (1) the TRO should not have been dismissed because his nonappearance was due to duress; (2) The judge admitted on the record she never read the domestic violence case which prohibited her from spotting defendant's violation of the TRO; (3) the judge was the reason he missed the FRO hearing because she issued a warrant for his arrest and suspended his license; and (4) the court failed to enforce defendant's TRO violation. Each of these arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.