Horvitz & Levy’s client sought to renew a domestic violence restraining order against her former partner before the order’s expiration. The trial court issued the original restraining order after our client proved a prolonged and pervasive pattern of abusive stalking, including planting listening devices in her home, listening outside her bedroom and bathroom windows, and driving by her house over 70 times in the middle of the night over
a few months. Our client sought renewal because she continued to fear for her safety without the restraining order. The trial court denied our client’s request to renew the restraining order, indicating that it would only renew a restraining order where the facts and violence supporting the original restraining order involved physical abuse, or, where they did not, if there was ongoing abuse since the original restraining order was issued.
The Court of Appeal reversed, agreeing with Horvitz & Levy’s arguments in a published opinion. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court applied the wrong legal framework when denying the request for a renewed restraining order. To renew a restraining order, a survivor need only show that a reasonable person, in her circumstances, would fear repetition of the abuse if the restraining order expired. A survivor need not show ongoing abuse since the original restraining order issued. Nor is nonphysical abuse, such as stalking, less deserving of protection than physical abuse. The original order could be issued based on reasonable fear of nonphysical abuse, and it can be renewed on the same basis.
G.G. v. G.S. 
