Oriola v. Thaler
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 822, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8598, 84 Cal. App. 4th 397 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purposes of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), a 'dating relationship' is a serious courtship characterized by a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest, a shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, and frequent interaction over a period of time such that the relationship is not casual.
Facts:
- In the fall of 1996, Joy Oriola and Adam Thaler met as members of the same gym.
- In November 1996, they began having conversations and exchanging e-mails.
- In December 1996, Oriola invited Thaler to attend a concert with a group of her friends.
- The day after the concert, Oriola telephoned Thaler and told him she was not interested in him romantically and only wanted to be friends.
- Over the next few weeks, Oriola invited Thaler to her family's Christmas dinner and a friend's party, intending to introduce him to other people, and they also went to a Sunday brunch alone.
- Thaler later expressed frustration that Oriola did not spend enough time with him and stated, 'I don’t know what I’d do if you started dating another man.'
- Oriola reiterated her lack of romantic interest and told Thaler they should stop socializing.
- Following this, Thaler began a pattern of harassing behavior, including repeated phone calls, following Oriola, making threats, and sending an 'e-mail bomb' to her workplace.
Procedural Posture:
- Joy Oriola filed an application in the trial court for a restraining order against Adam Thaler under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA).
- After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the parties did not have a 'dating relationship' within the meaning of the DVPA.
- The trial court dismissed Oriola's DVPA application for lack of jurisdiction.
- Oriola (appellant) filed a timely appeal of the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a brief social relationship, in which one party immediately expresses a lack of romantic interest after one outing, constitute a 'dating relationship' under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act, giving a court jurisdiction to issue a restraining order under the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Kline, P. J.
No, this does not constitute a 'dating relationship' under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). For the DVPA to apply, a 'dating relationship' must be a serious courtship, defined as a social relationship between two individuals with a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest, a shared expectation of growth in that interest, and frequent interactions over time that distinguish it from a casual relationship. The court reasoned that the DVPA aims to prevent 'domestic' violence, and its protections extend to relationships that have some measure of continuity or exclusivity, like those of spouses, cohabitants, or family members. As the DVPA does not define 'dating relationship,' the court looked to legislative intent and definitions from other states, which exclude casual acquaintanceships. Here, Oriola immediately disabused Thaler of any romantic expectation after their first outing, explicitly stating she only wanted to be friends. Their interactions were brief, never exclusive, and Oriola consistently characterized their connection as platonic. The court concluded the prospect of a dating relationship was 'quashed almost at the outset,' and therefore the relationship did not meet the definition required for jurisdiction under the DVPA, noting that other remedies like a civil harassment order were available.
Analysis:
This case established the first judicial definition of a 'dating relationship' under California's DVPA, setting a relatively high bar for its application. By defining it as a 'serious courtship' with mutual romantic interest, the court narrowed the statute's scope, distinguishing it from harassment that occurs between casual acquaintances or after brief, unreciprocated dating attempts. This decision channels cases lacking a sustained, mutual romantic connection toward the civil harassment injunction process, which offers fewer remedies (e.g., no restitution for lost wages). The ruling solidifies the 'domestic' focus of the DVPA, requiring a more substantial and reciprocal connection than a few social outings to invoke its specific protections.
