Burquet v. Brumbaugh CA2/5
223 Cal. App. 4th 1140
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Parties were former intimate partners; relationship ended April 2012 and plaintiff asked defendant repeatedly between June–Oct 2012 to stop contacting her.
- Despite requests, defendant sent emails/texts with sexual innuendo and repeatedly contacted plaintiff.
- On Feb 18, 2013 defendant appeared unannounced at plaintiff’s residence, would not leave when told, paced on the porch for ~10 minutes, shouted at her and made her afraid; he left before police arrived.
- Plaintiff obtained an ex parte DVPA restraining order (limited initially); after a March 20, 2013 hearing the court issued a two‑year restraining order forbidding contact and coming within specified distance.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion because plaintiff presented no evidence of past physical ‘‘abuse’’ and that ‘‘disturbing the peace’’ under section 6320 should be read narrowly (relying on Penal Code §415/Bushman).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a DVPA restraining order based on conduct that "disturbed the peace" | Burquet argued defendant’s repeated unwanted contacts, sexually suggestive messages, and the uninvited, prolonged, and frightening appearance at her home disturbed her peace and constituted DVPA "abuse" | Brumbaugh argued there was insufficient evidence of "disturbing the peace" as abuse and urged a Penal Code §415/Bushman definition (public‑order, violent/inciting conduct), so the restraining order exceeded bounds of reason | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding defendant’s course of conduct disturbed plaintiff’s peace under Family Code §§6203, 6320; adopted Nadkarni’s broader DVPA interpretation (not Bushman) and found no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Salazar v. Eastin, 9 Cal.4th 836 (standard of appellate review for injunctive relief) (abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- Quintana v. Guijosa, 107 Cal.App.4th 1077 (DVPA restraining order standard)
- Nadkarni (In re Marriage of Nadkarni), 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 (DVPA "disturbing the peace" can mean destruction of mental/emotional calm; broad construction)
- Conness v. Satram, 122 Cal.App.4th 197 (nonphysical conduct can constitute DVPA abuse)
- In re Bushman, 1 Cal.3d 767 (interpreting Penal Code §415 for public‑order disturbances; court held Bushman definition not controlling for DVPA)