241 Cal.App.4th 550, is distinguishable. In that case, as in the Cueto, supra, present case, the initial restraining order was issued due to substantial violent conduct that alone could support renewal of the order. (Id. at p. 562.) The court of appeal found the trial court abused its discretion in denying the renewal order. (Id. at p. 563.) But the trial court in on the lack of any violation of the restraining Cueto “relied largely order.” (Id. at p. 562.) In the present case, in contrast, the trial court had evidence of affirmative efforts by respondent to avoid appellant, as well as evidence that appellant intentionally put herself in a situation where she could encounter respondent (by joining Sonoma Fit) and used the restraining order to defame respondent (the incident at the Glen Ellen Lodge). Moreover, in the restrained party failed to attend anger management Cueto, classes he had been directed to attend (ibid.); appellant has not pointed to any analogous failures by respondent. Finally, the trial court in told the previously-restrained Cueto party that there is the [trial] court would consider another “if ‘any contact,’ ‘strongly restraining (Ibid.) This admonishment suggested that the party seeking renewal order.’ ” of the restraining order had demonstrated reasonable apprehension of future abuse. (Ibid.) Again, appellant points to nothing comparable in the present case. Disposition The trial order is affirmed and the matter is remanded for further court’s proceedings consistent with this decision. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.
Cueto, supra, 241 Cal.App.4th 550, is distinguishable. In that case, as in the present case, the initial restraining order was issued due to substantial violent conduct that alone could support renewal of the order. (Id. at p. 562.) The court of appeal found the trial court abused its discretion in denying the renewal order. (Id. at p. 563.) But the trial court in Cueto “relied largely on the lack of any violation of the restraining order.” (Id. at p. 562.) In the present case, in contrast, the trial court had evidence of affirmative efforts by respondent to avoid appellant, as well as evidence that appellant intentionally put herself in a situation where she could encounter respondent (by joining Sonoma Fit) and used the restraining order to defame respondent (the incident at the Glen Ellen Lodge). Moreover, in Cueto, the restrained party failed to attend anger management classes he had been directed to attend (ibid.); appellant has not pointed to any analogous failures by respondent. Finally, the trial court in Cueto told the previously-restrained party that “if there is ‘any contact,’ the [trial] court would ‘strongly consider another restraining order.’ ” (Ibid.) This admonishment suggested that the party seeking renewal of the restraining order had demonstrated reasonable apprehension of future abuse. (Ibid.) Again, appellant points to nothing comparable in the present case. Disposition The trial court’s order is affirmed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent.
A152825.DOCX