Jason Goldwater and Raphael Mena were neighbors, but they probably were not friends. In fact, they had a history of altercations. One day when Goldwater’s dog wandered onto Mena’s patio, Mena attacked the dog. Goldwater came over, and he and Mena got into a fight. The police were called. Mena and Goldwater had nearly opposite descriptions of what had happened. The police arrested Goldwater at the scene. Two days later, Goldwater filed a petition for a civil harassment restraining order against Mena. Mena also filed a petition for a restraining order against Goldwater. Because the two petitions were related, the Superior Court set both restraining order requests on the same day before the same judge.

At the hearing, Mena and Goldwater maintained their differing versions of the facts, with each accusing the other of being the instigator and aggressor. Mena’s petition was heard first, and it was granted. When Goldwater’s petition came on for hearing before the court, it was denied because Mena’s had already been granted, and as a result, the two men had to stay away from each other.

Goldwater appealed the court’s decision. The appellate court reviewed the situation and found that for purposes of civil harassment restraining order applications, Goldwater had met his burden of proof and that a restraining order should be issued against Mena. The initial denial of Goldwater’s application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) was improper, according to the court, because the court’s standard for the initial TRO is simply whether the elements of a restraining order have been shown based on clear and convincing evidence. Denying a TRO application is a finding by the court that the application did not meet the burden of proof. The court found the lack of practicality in the court issuing dueling TROs is an improper reason for denying a TRO application that satisfies the burden of proof.

To obtain a TRO as part of a civil harassment restraining order petition, the appellate court found that Goldwater had made a showing by clear and convincing evidence of the necessary elements to receive at TRO: specifically, Goldwater had shown that Mena had harassed or stalked Goldwater, or that Mena committed acts of violence against Goldwater, or that Mena had threatened Goldwater with violence. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, subdivision (b), Goldwater also showed that Mena’s conduct or course of conduct was such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the victim, Goldwater.

Ultimately, based upon Goldwater’s TRO application, the appellate court ordered that the second TRO should also be issued in favor of Goldwater so that the Superior Court could conduct the hearings on the permanent restraining orders on the same day.

TAKEAWAY:  If a petitioner makes the required showing, the petitioner is entitled to a TRO regardless of the impracticalities.