110 Cal.App.5th 1115
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- A.M. and R.Y. divorced in 2023, signing a marital settlement agreement (MSA) granting A.M. sole legal and primary physical custody of their daughter, plus a $15 million payment from R.Y.
- In May 2024, A.M. filed for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and temporary restraining order (DVTRO) against R.Y., alleging psychological, verbal, emotional, and sexual abuse, and coercive control, both during the marriage and after the separation.
- The trial court denied the request for a temporary restraining order the same day it was filed, citing insufficient proof of past abuse and characterizing the dispute as centered on dissolution and custody.
- A.M. appealed, arguing the denial was an error given her detailed allegations and evidence of abuse.
- The permanent DVRO hearing was continued to August 2025, and A.M. sought appellate review of the DVTRO denial.
- On appeal, the court considered whether the DVTRO denial was legally and procedurally proper, and what discretion the trial court possesses at the ex parte stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability & Mootness of DVTRO Denial | Order denying DVTRO is appealable and not moot because permanent DVRO hearing is pending | Order not appealable; moot since temporary relief would have expired | DVTRO denial is appealable and not moot |
| Sufficiency of Allegations to Support DVTRO | Detailed declaration and evidence make a facially sufficient showing of abuse | Evidence insufficient, focused on post-dissolution/custody disputes | A.M. made a prima facie showing; trial erred in finding otherwise |
| Discretion to Deny DVTRO Despite Showing of Abuse | Court must grant DVTRO upon facially sufficient showing per precedent | Court can defer or deny DVTRO if no immediate threat is shown | Court has discretion to deny, but reasons must consider abuse prevention purpose |
| Proper Grounds for Denying DVTRO | Court lacked proper legal basis; denial based on context, not substance of abuse | Denial justified by lack of recent/serious abuse and context | Denial improper; must be supported by reasons grounded in DVPA purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (court must assume truth of allegations in protective order requests; denial only for facially insufficient allegations)
- In re Marriage of Nadkarni, 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (disturbing the peace includes emotional abuse sufficient for DVRO)
- S.M. v. E.P., 184 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (grant or denial of protective order reviewed for abuse of discretion)