Cooper v. Bettinger
242 Cal. App. 4th 77
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Cooper, a jewelry designer, received multiple unwanted communications in 2010–2011 from Bettinger—letters, an email, and a phone call—after decades of minimal prior contact; the letters contained paranormal/telepathic claims, personal reminiscences, and business solicitations.
- Cooper sought and obtained a civil harassment restraining order under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6 after a July 15, 2011 hearing; that order ran for three years and Bettinger did not appeal.
- Cooper timely requested renewal of the restraining order within three months before its expiration; Bettinger opposed, arguing no further contact had occurred and renewal should not be automatic.
- At the June 17, 2014 renewal hearing the trial court treated § 527.6(j)(1) as requiring renewal upon timely application, exercised its discretion only over duration, and renewed the order for five additional years (to June 17, 2019).
- Bettinger appealed the renewal, arguing the court improperly treated renewal as mandatory and should have required Cooper to show a reasonable probability of future harassment.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding that renewal under § 527.6(j)(1) is discretionary (not automatic) and the trial court must exercise informed discretion considering whether there is a reasonable probability the restrained party’s wrongful acts will recur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cooper) | Defendant's Argument (Bettinger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether renewal under § 527.6(j)(1) is automatic upon timely request | Renewal statute permits renewal without new showing; timely application should be granted | Renewal is not mandatory; court must consider whether renewal is warranted and require proof of reasonable probability of future harassment | Renewal is discretionary, not automatic; trial court must decide whether to renew and for how long |
| Proper standard for renewal | Court may renew based on original record; petitioner need not show additional harassment since original order | Petitioner must show reasonable probability of recurrence and clear and convincing evidence to justify renewal | Trial court should consider whether there is a reasonable probability of repetition when exercising its discretion (but may rely on original record) |
| Use of original-order findings at renewal | Original order’s findings stand if not appealed; renewal may be based on that record | Defendant cannot relitigate validity of original order at renewal if he failed to appeal | Original findings are binding for renewal consideration where no appeal was taken; trial court may rely on original record |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Plaintiff sought fees if she prevailed | Defendant sought fees under § 527.6(r) | Interim appeal: neither party awarded appellate attorney fees; prevailing-party determination deferred until final resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Brekke v. Wills, 125 Cal.App.4th 1400 (2005) (describing § 527.6 as providing expedited injunctive relief to harassment victims)
- Ensworth v. Mullvain, 224 Cal.App.3d 1105 (1990) (granting an injunction implies court found clear and convincing evidence of harassment and substantial emotional distress)
- Gonzalez v. Munoz, 156 Cal.App.4th 413 (2007) (appellate court will not reweigh competing reasonable inferences drawn by trial court)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4th 96 (2013) (a discretionary decision influenced by an incorrect understanding of law is subject to reversal)
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (2004) (discussing renewal under Family Code protective order context and explaining renewal policy considerations)
- R.D. v. P.M., 202 Cal.App.4th 181 (2011) (distinguishing renewal from reissuance when an earlier order has lapsed; different showing required for new petitions)
- Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal.App.3d 168 (1990) (injunctive relief should be denied where no reasonable probability exists that past acts will recur)