Altafulla v. Ervin
Annotate this CaseDefendant and appellant John Ervin challenged a restraining order issued against him under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. He also argued the trial court erred in failing to issue an order restraining his former domestic partner, plaintiff-respondent Carolina Altafulla. The trial court's orders arose out of Ervin's discovery that Altafulla had been unfaithful. In response to the discovery of Altafulla's unfaithfulness, Ervin sent emails to Altafulla's employer and their mutual friends. Furthermore, he attempted to traumatize Altafulla's children with graphic descriptions of his claims of Altafulla's infidelity. Among other things, Ervin argued on appeal to the Court of Appeal that the trial court record was not sufficient to support a DVPA restraining order. After review, the Court disagreed: Ervin's email campaign and emotional abuse of Altafulla's daughters amounted to conduct that was alarming, annoying and harassing, served no legitimate purpose, would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, and actually did cause substantial emotional distress. As such, Ervin's conduct constituted harassment within the meaning of the DVPA and was therefore sufficient to support issuance of a restraining order.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.