Davila v. Mejia (In re Davila)
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 805
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Davila (wife) filed an ex parte request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) alleging Mejia threatened to physically harm her and she feared for her and her children's safety; a temporary DVRO issued and a hearing was set.
- Davila’s written petition described verbal/emotional abuse of children, threats to physically harm Davila, and a November 2 incident where Mejia jumped a gate and banged on doors/windows.
- At the contested hearing Davila testified Mejia had held a handgun to her head two to three times and threatened to kill her; Mejia denied those allegations and disputed Davila’s credibility.
- Mejia attempted to introduce evidence/allegations (welfare-fraud-related) to impeach Davila; the trial court declined to consider that material.
- The trial court found Davila credible, concluded abuse occurred, and issued a two-year DVRO protecting Davila and her three children; Mejia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mejia) | Defendant's Argument (Davila) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could consider testimony at the hearing that was not detailed in the written DVRO request | Trial court erred by relying on Davila’s gun allegations because they were not specified in her petition | Petition’s general allegation of threats put Mejia on notice; Davila may testify about specifics at hearing | Court affirmed: general allegations sufficed; testimony admissible and Mejia had opportunity to respond |
| Whether Mejia was denied a meaningful opportunity to respond / entitled to continuance | Needed more notice or time to prepare to meet new specific allegations | Mejia received notice of general threats and had hearing opportunity; did not request continuance | Court affirmed: no denial of meaningful opportunity; Mejia forfeited by not requesting continuance or objecting |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider Mejia’s impeachment evidence (welfare-fraud documents) | Court should have considered evidence impeaching Davila’s credibility | Trial court declined to consider those allegations and said it wouldn’t rely on them | Court affirmed: appellant failed to lodge record of the proffered documents or show abuse of discretion |
| Whether substantial evidence supported issuance of the DVRO | Contended lack of substantial evidence to support protective order | Davila’s testimony and children’s incident supported finding of threats and harassment | Court held substantial evidence supported the DVRO (threats with gun, stalking/harassment toward children) |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevarez v. Tonna, 227 Cal.App.4th 774 (discusses DVPA standard and evidentiary scope at DVRO hearings)
- In re Jonathan V., 19 Cal.App.5th 236 (notice and meaningful opportunity to prepare required before restraining order issued)
- In re Marriage of G., 11 Cal.App.5th 773 (abuse of discretion and substantial-evidence standards for DVRO review)
- Cooper v. Bettinger, 242 Cal.App.4th 77 (burden of proof for DVPA is preponderance of the evidence)
- Duronslet v. Kamps, 203 Cal.App.4th 717 (issues not objected to below are forfeited on appeal)