Lister v. Bowen CA1/2
215 Cal. App. 4th 319
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Lister sought renewal of a restraining order against Bowen, initially issued for stalking in 2008 and renewed multiple times.
- The court issued a 2011 order renewing the restraining order for five years, later shortened to three years after a November 2011 hearing.
- Bowen filed a motion for reconsideration under CCP §1008 and appealed from a December 14, 2011 order.
- The December 14 order reduced the renewal term and modified the September 7, 2011 order; Bowen appealed this modification.
- The appellate court concluded the appeal was timely and that the court did not abuse its discretion in renewing the order based on reasonable apprehension of future abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Bowen’s appeal from December 14 order | Bowen appeal untimely under 90-day rule | December 14 order materially changed rights; timely appeal | Appeal timely; December 14 order was a substantial modification enabling appeal |
| Proper standard for renewal under §6345 and Ritchie | Renewal warranted by reasonable apprehension of future abuse | Renewal not justified by years-old conduct; insufficient imminent risk | Renewal sustained based on Bowen’s July 7, 2011 violation and ongoing apprehension of harm |
| Use of Bowen’s litigation conduct as basis for renewal | Litigation activity evidence of abuse supportive of renewal | No improper reliance on litigation; evidence insufficient | Court’s consideration of litigation conduct was not error; affirmed renewal |
| Overbreadth/infringement of associational rights | Order overbroad by restricting associations with CATS | No protected association rights violated; permitted income-producing access | No reversible error; order upheld as narrowly tailored to protect safety |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. Conrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (reasonable apprehension standard for renewal of protective orders; not require imminent danger)
- Dakota Payphone, LLC v. Alcaraz, 192 Cal.App.4th 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (amendment of judgment may reset appeal period when substantial rights change)
- Nestle Ice Cream Co., LLC v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 146 Cal.App.4th 1104 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (amendment extending appeal period if it affects rights; clerical corrections do not)
- Stone v. Regents of Univ. of California, 77 Cal.App.4th 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (substantial modification of judgment can affect rights and extend appeal period)
- Avalos v. Perez, 196 Cal.App.4th 773 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (evidence supporting continued apprehension can sustain renewal)
- Gonzalez v. Munoz, 156 Cal.App.4th 413 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for trial court decisions on restraining orders)