Lugo v. Corona
35 Cal. App. 5th 865
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Lugo filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her husband, Corona, after a physical altercation and threats; their children were present or nearby.
- A criminal protective order dated August 16, 2017 already restrained Corona from all contact with Lugo, ordered a 100-yard stay-away, and included a stay-away from the family home.
- Lugo sought additional civil relief (protecting relatives, property, custody/visitation orders, and specific stay-away terms) and the family court issued a temporary restraining order but deferred all requested protections until the hearing.
- At the DVRO hearing the family court reviewed the criminal protective order and summarily denied Lugo’s DVRO request, stating the criminal order “takes priority” and the court could not change it.
- Lugo appealed, arguing a criminal protective order does not preclude issuance of a DVRO and that the family court failed to make required factual findings under the DVPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an existing criminal protective order bars a family court from issuing a DVRO | Lugo: existence of criminal order does not prevent a civil DVRO; DVPA remedies are additional and nonexclusive | Family court/Corona: the criminal protective order takes priority and thus no need for a separate DVRO | Reversed: criminal protective order does not bar issuance of DVRO; family court erred by refusing to consider DVRO on merits |
| Whether family court must make DVPA factual findings before denying relief | Lugo: court failed to consider totality of circumstances and make required findings | Implicitly: criminal order resolved protection needs so no further DVPA findings required | Court remanded for reconsideration so family court may decide DVRO on merits and make necessary findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Fregoso and Hernandez, 5 Cal.App.5th 698 (appellate standard for reviewing DVRO orders)
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (scope of judicial discretion tied to governing statute)
- People v. Rodriguez, 1 Cal.5th 676 (statutory purpose guides review of discretionary rulings)
- Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, 189 Cal.App.4th 1472 (remedies described as "in addition to" are nonexclusive)
- Babalola v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 948 (legislative recognition that criminal and civil protective orders may both issue)
- Mejia v. Reed, 31 Cal.4th 657 (courts resort to policy only when statutory text is ambiguous)