Valerie G. v. Louis G.
2017 WL 2351323, 218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200, 11 Cal. App. 5th 773 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Reasonable self-defense, including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or property, is a valid defense against a finding of "abuse" under Family Code section 6203, even if bodily injury results to the initial aggressor.
Facts:
- Valerie G. filed a petition for marital dissolution and requested a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against her husband, Louis G., alleging he physically injured her during confrontations.
- Louis G. denied being violent, asserting that Valerie G. was mercurial and abusive, and initiated aggression against him and his property on multiple occasions.
- In August 2015, Valerie G. took Louis G.'s work laptop and hid it; when Louis G. found it, Valerie G. blocked his exit and physically grappled with him to reclaim the laptop.
- During the August 2015 struggle, Valerie G. wrapped her arms around Louis G., spat in his face, and covered his mouth and nose with her hand.
- To free his breathing, Louis G. "nipped" Valerie G.'s thumb with the least amount of pressure necessary, and Valerie G. subsequently scraped her knee on the bed frame during the continued struggle.
- In November 2015, Valerie G. snatched Louis G.'s cell phone from his desk; Louis G. quickly retrieved it, and Valerie G. aggressively tried to regain control of the phone, grabbing his arms, wrists, and shoulders.
- During the November 2015 struggle, Louis G. pulled away from Valerie G.'s grip to remove himself from the situation, causing Valerie G. to lose her balance and fall on her tailbone, possibly hitting her head.
- Later in November 2015, Valerie G. again assaulted Louis G. by grabbing his cell phone from his pocket while he was packing; they struggled into the kitchen, where Louis G. collapsed from a pinched nerve, and Valerie G. then put his cell phone in the sink and ran water on it.
Procedural Posture:
- Valerie G. filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and an application for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against Louis G. in a California trial court.
- Louis G. filed written opposition to Valerie G.'s DVRO application.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Valerie G.'s DVRO application, hearing testimony from both Valerie G. and Louis G.
- The trial court ruled against Valerie G., concluding that the physical confrontations and resulting injuries were triggered by Valerie G.'s aggression and that Louis G. did not use excessive force in response.
- Valerie G. appealed the trial court's order denying the DVRO 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 an individual's infliction of bodily injury during a physical confrontation constitute "abuse" within the meaning of Family Code section 6203 when the injuries were sustained by the party who initiated the aggression, and the other party acted in reasonable self-defense without using excessive force?
Opinions:
Majority - Dato, J.
No, an individual's infliction of bodily injury during a physical confrontation does not constitute "abuse" under Family Code section 6203 when the injuries were sustained by the party who initiated the aggression, and the other party acted in reasonable self-defense without using excessive force. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that a finding of abuse is not automatically mandated simply because the complainant suffered an injury. Fundamental legal principles permit a person to use reasonable force to defend their person or property against an aggressor, even if it results in bodily injury to the aggressor. The court cited Family Code section 6305, which implicitly recognizes self-defense in the context of mutual restraining orders, and Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998), which establishes that justifiable force is not "willful" or "culpable." The trial court, as the trier of fact, found that Louis G. was acting in response to Valerie G.'s attempts to take his property by physical force and did not employ excessive force. Since these factual findings were supported by evidence, the denial of the DVRO was not an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of "abuse" under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), formally integrating principles of reasonable self-defense. It establishes that a complainant's injuries caused by the respondent in reasonable self-defense, without excessive force, do not qualify as abuse for a DVRO. This ruling provides a critical defense for individuals responding to aggression and protects against restraining orders being issued based solely on the occurrence of injury. Future cases will need to carefully assess the 'reasonableness' and 'excessiveness' of force used, placing a strong emphasis on the factual findings of the trial court.
