Conness

Conness v. Satram

Bad Law
122 Cal. App. 4th 197·18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 577·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1511·2004 Daily Journal DAR 11363·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8406
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2004A104888California2,448 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

Pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.), a court may issue a protective order to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of domestic violence and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved. (§§ 6220, 6300.) California law regulates the issuance of mutual restraining orders under the DVPA by subjecting them to additional procedural requirements. (§ 6305.) In this case, Usha Satram (appellant) appeals a restraining order issued against her on behalf of Raymond Conness (respondent). Among her grounds is one that raises an issue of first impression: When two antagonistic parties separately apply for and receive restraining orders under the DVPA on different dates, is the second application a request for a mutual order, subject to the requirements of section 6305? In the published part of our opinion, we conclude it is not and affirm.

Background

On September 16, 2003, respondent was granted a domestic violence temporary restraining order (TRO) against appellant, with whom he had previously had a dating relationship. Respondent’s application for his restraining order noted the existence of a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.