Andrew Seko

Why this case is important:

If a party cannot afford a private court reporter, and the court cannot provide a court reporter, the court must use another method to make a verbatim (word-for-word) record, like an electronic recording of the court proceeding. This case applies to all “proceedings” that take place at court – not just trials or hearings. A free verbatim record must be granted “upon request” which means if you ask for it you should get it.

The court rejected the idea that a formal fee waiver application should be required before granting the request for a free verbatim record. Courts are supposed to be “flexible” when deciding whether someone can afford to pay for a private court reporter. Courts should not be continuing matters to wait for a free court reporter, instead, if a court has electronic recording, the court must use it.

The duty to provide a verbatim record isn’t limited to cases involving fundamental rights or liberty interests – it applies to all cases.

Summary of the case:

See our dedicated page about this case.

View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.

Why this case is important:

This case explains that indirect contact, by itself, can count as disturbing the peace of another party under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA).

• The DVPA is not limited to direct contact.
• Actions, whether committed directly, indirectly, or through a third party–including electronic technologies such as phone calls or social media–can constitute disturbing the peace.

This case explains that the totality of the circumstances must be considered when granting or denying a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO).

• The court must consider evidence of abuse over the full course of the relationship.
• The court may not limit its consideration of evidence to a particular time period, such as after the relationship has ended.

Summary of the case:

In this case, A.G., appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her former boyfriend, R.M., and granting R.M.’s request for a DVRO against her.

R.M. filed for a DVRO against A.G. alleging she had abused him, including physical abuse and repeatedly attempting to contact him after they broke up. A.G. filed her own request alleging R.M. had abused her during most of their relationship and after they broke up. Her allegations included many instances of physical and sexual abuse, harassment, violating her privacy, encouraging her to commit suicide, and damaging her professional reputation.

At the hearing on both A.G. and R.M.’s requests, the court heard testimony that after their dating relationship ended, A.G. had attempted to contact R.M. over a thousand times. The court also heard that R.M. had made numerous social media posts about A.G. These posts included intimate photographs of A.G., and personal information about A.G. and witnesses to his abuse. R.M. also changed his social media usernames to refer to A.G. using explicit and demeaning language, such as “[A.][G.]ispsycho”, “ketaminewhor[e]” and “pleasekillurself”. In addition, R.M. contacted A.G.’s witness and A.G.’s mother and told A.G.’s private information about A.G. Despite A.G.’s allegations, the court refused to hear testimony about the time period before A.G. and R.M’s relationship ended.

The court decided not to issue a DVRO against R.M. because he had not directly contacted A.G. since their relationship ended. In response to R.M.’s posts about A.G., the court suggested A.G. should stop looking at R.M.’s social media. The court granted R.M.’s request for a DVRO because of A.G.’s attempts to contact R.M. after their relationship ended.

The Court of Appeal reversed saying the trial court erred by failing to consider R.M.’s indirect contacts, such as through his social media posts and communications with her family and friends, could be abuse. The Court said A.G. had provided substantial evidence that R.M. was indirectly communicating with her in ways that disturbed her peace. Abuse under the DVPA is not limited to direct contact but includes indirect contact including through use of another person. Abuse includes contact through any means including electronic technologies.

The Court of Appeal also held that courts must consider evidence of abuse over the course of the parties’ relationship and evaluate the totality of the circumstances, instead of just considering conduct that occurred after the dating relationship ended. The Court reversed both A.G.’s denied DVRO and the DVRO granted to R.M. because in mutual DVRO cases the trial court must consider all the relevant conduct by both parties before issuing any restraining order.

View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.

Why this case is important:

This can help your clients understand that even if they are representing themselves:

• They must follow California’s Rules of Court by only providing true and correct case citations. This means they must not cite to AI (artificial intelligence) hallucinations. They may only cite real cases and must provide correct quotations and summaries of such cases.
• They must accurately reference their case history and provide the location in the record on appeal of the case history they write about in their briefs.
• They must format their briefs in accordance with California’s Rules of Court.
• They may be sanctioned for unreasonable violations of the Rules of Court, including citing to cases that are AI hallucinations.

Summary of the case:

In this case an ex-wife appealed a trial court order modifying child support payments owed by her ex-husband. The ex-husband, who was self-represented, cited cases that do not exist and fabricated quotes that do not appear in real cases in his respondent’s brief. Also, his brief referenced hearings in his case that did not appear in the case’s record, included unsupported irrelevant factual assertions and was formatted incorrectly. In response to ex-wife’s motion to strike the respondent’s brief, ex-husband explained he used an AI tool to draft the respondent’s brief and did not verify his citations nor knowingly submit false information to the court.

The Court found ex-husband, although self-represented, should be held to the same standard as an attorney and thus was obligated to submit briefing that did not include false and missing citations. The Court also found that it could impose monetary sanctions against ex-husband because of his unreasonable violations of the Rules of Court. However, the Court chose not to sanction ex-husband because he admitted his error and the Court believed sanctions would not be in the best interest of the children at the heart of the underlying proceeding.

The precedential part of the opinion can be helpful in admonishing all litigants, including abusers, that their filings need to comply with the rules of court and be checked for accuracy to avoid AI hallucinations.

View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.

Why this case is important:

• This is the first California appellate decision to expressly hold that a survivor does NOT need to prove their abuser intended to threaten, harm, or intimidate them in order for them to prove abuse happened, and to get a restraining order.
• This case reaffirms a point of law important for DVRO cases: For an initial DVRO, the survivor does NOT need to show a “probability of future abuse”; they only need to prove past abuse.
• Also, if you or your client are appealing the denial of a DVRO request or other DVRO relief, you can use this case to argue that the Court of Appeal should not only reverse the denial but also remand (send back to the trial court) with instructions to grant the DVRO or other relief.

Summary of the Case

In this case, R.R. sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against his ex-wife C.R., with whom he has a child. R.R. filed for divorce in 2020 and then filed a request for a DVRO in 2024 based on C.R.’s escalating pattern of abuse, including stalking him “almost daily” and sending him threatening messages. For instance, C.R. followed R.R. while was driving with their child, C.R. rang R.R.’s doorbell incessantly at all hours of the day and night, and C.R. threatened to disparage R.R. to his employer. At the hearing on R.R.’s DVRO request, the trial court found that although C.R. acted in the ways R.R. testified, her actions weren’t abuse under the law because R.R. did not present enough evidence that she intentionally tried to threaten or intimidate him.

The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred when it said that R.R. needed to prove C.R.’s intent in order to prove abuse happened and a DVRO was needed. The appellate court also explained that R.R. did not need to prove any probability of future abuse, because an initial DVRO requires only past abuse. Because of the undisputed evidence of C.R.’s abuse, and the trial court’s express findings about C.R.’s actions, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial and remanded the case back to the trial court to issue R.R. his DVRO against C.R.

View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.