Kandel v. Kandel CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 2013 No. B242499MUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a request to renew a domestic violence restraining order under Family Code section 6345 is not a 'cause of action' subject to the anti-SLAPP statute, nor does it arise from protected activity.

Issues

Whether a request to renew a domestic violence restraining order constitutes a 'cause of action' under the anti-SLAPP statute.
Whether a request to renew a restraining order arises from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Dawn's request to renew the restraining order was not a "cause of action" within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute and did not arise from Scott's protected activity.”

“Similarly, the procedure for renewing a restraining order under Family Code section 6345 is not akin to adjudication of a disputed claim.”

Filed 9/12/13 Kandel v. Kandel CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DAWN L. KANDEL, 2d Civil No. B242499 (Super. Ct. No. SD037475) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING SCOTT C. KANDEL, [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on August 20, 2013, be modified as follows: 1. On page 1, the second sentence in the second full paragraph, is deleted and the following sentence is inserted in its place: "They had two daughters, born in 1998 and 2003." 2. On page 3, in the first sentence of the third full paragraph, the word "temporarily" is deleted, and insert the word "section" between "Code" and "6345," so the sentence reads: "Similarly, the procedure for renewing a restraining order under Family Code section 6345 is not akin to adjudication of a disputed claim." There is no change in judgment. Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.

Filed 8/20/13 (unmodified version) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DAWN L. KANDEL, 2d Civil No. B242499 (Super. Ct. No. SD037475) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

Kandel v. Kandel CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SCOTT C. KANDEL,

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

AI Brief