Horvitz & Levy obtained a published opinion that reversed an order denying a client’s request to renew a domestic violence restraining order, and the legal standard for renewal of such orders.

A.N. obtained a restraining order against her former partner, who had tried to kill her. The former partner violated the terms of the order more than once by contacting A.N. A.N. sought renewal of the order because she continued to fear for her safety.  The trial court denied her request to renew the restraining order, crediting the former partner’s testimony that the attempted murder was caused by a bad reaction she was having to knee medication. The trial court also acknowledged that contacting A.N. was a violation of the order, but because the contact was, in the court’s view, nonthreatening, it found that the violations were not enough to warrant renewal.

Horvitz & Levy represented A.N. pro bono on appeal. The California Court of Appeal reversed with directions, agreeing with Horvitz & Levy’s arguments in a published opinion. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding A.N.’s fear was unreasonable based on mitigating factors that were unsupported by substantial evidence. To renew a restraining order, a protected party need only show that a reasonable person, in her circumstances, would fear repetition of the abuse if the restraining order expired. The Court of Appeal held A.N. satisfied the renewal standard as a matter of law, observing that a single “egregious” incident underlying the restraining order, like the attempted murder here, could be sufficient grounds for renewal and that subsequent violations of the restraining order weigh heavily in favor of renewal, no matter how well intentioned those violations may seem from the perspective of the violator. The court also noted that lower courts should carefully consider the underlying restraining order before encouraging settlement discussions, especially when, as here, the restrained party violated the order.