In re Marriage of G.E. & I.D. (2026) 121 Cal.App.5th 1103

After three hearing dates, during which Wife presented extensive evidence of Husband’s alleged abuse—including physical abuse and threats to deport Wife to the parties’ home country—the trial court did not decide whether Wife had established abuse warranting a DVRO. Instead, on the final hearing date, Husband’s attorney orally moved to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 533. The court dismissed Wife’s DVRO petition and terminated the existing DVTRO, stating that neither side had completed its case within the time allotted by the court.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that section 533 did not authorize dismissal of an unresolved DVRO request. Section 533 permits a court to modify or dissolve an existing injunction or temporary restraining order, but it does not authorize a court to summarily deny an unadjudicated request for a DVRO. The trial court’s inherent authority to manage litigation also did not permit the dismissal here. Although courts may impose reasonable time limits, exclude cumulative evidence, and otherwise regulate proceedings, the trial court went further by dismissing the entire DVRO action without deciding the merits. The Court of Appeal explained that summary dismissal was not warranted, particularly where lesser alternatives were available. It also stressed that docket-management concerns and judicial efficiency cannot override the strong policy favoring decisions on the merits, especially in DVRO proceedings given the DVPA’s broad protective purpose. The trial court therefore erred by “exalt[ing] expediency over justice” rather than deciding whether Wife had established abuse.

The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court erred by dissolving the DVTRO under Code of Civil Procedure section 533 because Wife did not receive advance notice that termination of the temporary order would be considered. Husband made the request orally on the final day of the hearing, and the court ruled shortly thereafter. The Court of Appeal held that these “surprise developments” deprived Wife of a meaningful opportunity to marshal evidence and prepare a reasoned opposition to termination of the DVTRO. Because section 533 permits modification or dissolution of an injunction or temporary restraining order only “on notice,” the trial court abused its discretion by terminating the DVTRO without providing Wife advance notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.