Altafulla v. Ervin
238 Cal. App. 4th 571
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ervin challenged a DVPA restraining order against him based on his conduct after a discovery of Altafulla's infidelity.
- Altafulla obtained a temporary and then permanent DVPA order; Ervin’s conduct included emails to mutual friends and a surveillance report.
- At home, Ervin allegedly described sexual acts to Altafulla’s underage daughters, discussed potential diseases, and dismantled the children's furniture to traumatize them.
- Altafulla testified that her 17-year-old daughter became severely traumatized, requiring inpatient psychiatric care after Ervin's actions.
- Ervin argued the emails and statements were true or not harassing and that the court erred in issuing a five-year order; the trial court and appellate court disagreed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders, rejecting Ervin’s constitutional challenges and Ervin’s cross-petition for relief, and awarded costs to Altafulla.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process on Ervin was proper. | Altafulla served Ervin; service defect waived. | Ervin contends service was defective. | No defect; Ervin waived or appeared at hearing. |
| Whether Ervin's emails and conduct constituted DVPA harassment. | Emails and public disclosures caused substantial distress; harassment under DVPA. | Statements were true or not harassing; not enough for DVPA. | Harassing conduct under DVPA; supported restraining order. |
| Whether five-year term was appropriate. | Five years excessive; requested three years. | Five years permitted; justified by impact on child. | Court did not abuse discretion; five-year term affirmed. |
| Whether DVPA rid of constitutionality challenges. | DVPA unconstitutional on multiple grounds. | DVPA infringes First/Second Amendment rights. | DVPA constitutional; challenges rejected. |
| Whether the court should have granted Ervin an order against Altafulla. | Altafulla’s conduct could justify reciprocal relief. | Altafulla did not engage in abusive conduct; no basis for order. | No abuse by Altafulla; no order against her. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nadkarni, 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (broadly construes 'disturbing the peace' to include emotional distress via information misuse)
- Delacy v. United States, 192 Cal.App.4th 1481 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (recognizes limitations on gun/firearm restrictions in DV context as permissible regulation)
- People v. Hernandez, 231 Cal.App.3d 1376 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (discusses compelling government interests in restricting speech under DVPA)
- Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121 (Cal. 1999) (limits on First Amendment challenges to statutes not targeting protected expression)
- United States v. Knight, 574 F.Supp.2d 224 (D. Me. 2008) (notes firearm restrictions as compelling public interest during DV contexts)
- People v. Delacy, 192 Cal.App.4th 1481 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses constitutional aspects of firearm prohibitions in DV context)