Valdez v. Valdez CA1/5

Filed 4/28/23 Valdez v. Valdez CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

DAVID VALDEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, A163041 v. NORMAN J. VALDEZ, JR., (Lake County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FL213745)

This appeal reaches back to a violent altercation between brothers David Valdez and Norman Valdez, Jr. (“Joe”)1 in 2017. Following this incident, the brothers applied for and obtained mutual three-year domestic violence restraining orders (See Fam. Code,2 §§ 6220, 6300).

Three years later, Joe (but not David) applied unsuccessfully to renew his restraining order and make it permanent. On appeal from the order denying his application, he argues David’s attorney committed misconduct; that the court misconstrued the law; and that it abused its discretion by failing to properly consider all pertinent facts and evidence. We affirm.

The brothers share a common surname, so for clarity we 1

will use their first names. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code.

1

BACKGROUND In the proceedings on the original applications, the trial court found Joe was the initial aggressor and that David used disproportionate force when he responded by twice striking Joe on the head with a 14-pound piece of steel. The court granted both brothers’ applications and issued mutual three-year restraining orders.

Three years later Joe applied to permanently renew his restraining order against David, whom he alleged had repeatedly violated court orders and continued to harass and disparage him. In opposition, David argued that Joe failed to demonstrate the objectively reasonable apprehension of future abuse required to renew a restraining order. (See § 6345; Rybolt v. Riley (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 864, 874.) According to David, his sole transgression was acting excessively in self-defense during the 2017 altercation; moreover, Joe had been evicted from their father’s property (the site of the altercation) and moved to a different county, so there was no longer any reason for the brothers to encounter each other.