Jensen v. Jensen CA2/1
B307354
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 30, 2022Background
- Kristen and Steven married in 2005, divorced by judgment in 2015; they have two minor children.
- In 2017 a California family court issued a 3-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Steven based on harassment (including dissemination of nude photos) and disturbing the peace; custody/visitation orders were attached.
- Steven committed contempt for violating custody/visitation orders (2016 plea and 2018 contempt/jail sentence).
- The parties moved to North Carolina in 2019; Kristen sought to renew the DVRO in both North Carolina (denied) and Los Angeles in May 2020.
- The Los Angeles court denied Steven’s forum non conveniens motion, considered the original DVRO findings plus post-DVRO conduct (including the 2018 contempt and in-court gestures), and permanently renewed the DVRO.
- Steven appealed, arguing lack of California subject-matter jurisdiction, improper forum/venue, extraterritorial application of California law, incorrect legal standard, and insufficient evidence; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kristen) | Defendant's Argument (Steven) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to renew the DVRO | Renewal is a subsequent proceeding in the same DVRO action; jurisdiction established at filing continues | Once both parties reside in NC, CA no longer has subject-matter jurisdiction over the protective-order dispute | Affirmed: subject-matter jurisdiction continues for subsequent proceedings in the action; renewal was properly before the CA court |
| Extraterritorial application / due process | California order may be enforced in NC under NC law; renewal did not improperly apply CA law extraterritorially | Renewal applied §6345 extraterritorially to conduct in NC, violating due process | Affirmed: enforcement in NC is governed by NC law (full faith and credit); no impermissible extraterritorial application found |
| Forum non conveniens / appropriate forum | LA court is appropriate given its extensive prior involvement and factual record | NC is the more convenient and appropriate forum; LA court should have dismissed | Affirmed: Steven failed to show NC was a suitable alternative forum and LA was not more appropriate given court’s history with the case |
| Legal standard and sufficiency of evidence for renewal; use of petitioning conduct | Renewal requires only preponderance showing of objectively reasonable apprehension of future abuse; court may rely on original findings plus subsequent conduct | Court applied wrong standard (required post-DVRO abuse) and improperly relied on Steven’s litigation/petitioning conduct; evidence insufficient | Affirmed: court applied correct renewal standard (Ritchie); post-DVRO abuse not required; any error in considering petitioning conduct was harmless because ample admissible evidence (original findings, contempt, post-order harassment) supported permanent renewal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (2004) (articulates standard for DVRO renewal—preponderance showing of objectively reasonable apprehension of future abuse)
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (2007) (DVPA application may be treated as an independent cause of action)
- Dial 800 v. Fesbinder, 118 Cal.App.4th 32 (2004) (subject-matter jurisdiction legal issue reviewed de novo)
- Chong v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.App.4th 1032 (1997) (forum non conveniens threshold—suitability of alternate forum)
- American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 87 Cal.App.4th 431 (2001) (suitability of alternate forum requires showing of jurisdiction there)
- Ashby v. Ashby, 68 Cal.App.5th 491 (2021) (post-order conduct may be considered in renewal; compliance does not preclude reasonable apprehension)
- Cueto v. Dozier, 241 Cal.App.4th 550 (2015) (DVRO violations can support renewal but are not required)
- Christ v. Schwartz, 2 Cal.App.5th 440 (2016) (evidentiary error review uses People v. Watson harmless-error standard)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless-error standard—appellant must show reasonable probability of a different result)
- Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975) (not controlling here; court distinguishes extraterritoriality concerns in other contexts)