M. Jude Egan. The Death of the Non-CLETS Domestic Violence Restraining Order. Finally.
Family Law specialist M. Jude Egan urges custody and visitation lawyers and legal aid clinics who represent survivors of abuse to consider deeply the implications of treating DVROs as distinct matters or included matters in dissolution cases on custody, visitation, and support issues particularly.
January 13, 2022 at 02:37 PM
12 minute read
I do not like publicizing my appellate court losses. I like to win as much as any lawyer. However, I make an exception in the newly published case of Marriage of Reichental 2d Civil No. B307255, which presents us with a definitive published decision on an important area of law for family law practitioners across the state (even if it was not the ultimate outcome we sought).
Those of us who have been practicing family law for longer than the past couple of years have grown accustomed to "non-CLETS" Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVRO). A "non-CLETS" order is enforceable via contempt rather than through law enforcement. The difference for non-family lawyers is that violation of a CLETS, or California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, order leads to immediate arrest by law enforcement and violation of a non-CLETS leads (potentially) to a citation for contempt.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
The Rise of Female Breadwinners: Challenging Traditional Divorce Dynamics
4 minute read
Judge's Civil Contempt Order for Zoom Recording Violation Must Include 'The Keys to the Cell,' State Appellate Court Says
4 minute read
Los Angeles Courts Took a Bold Step to Protect Your Rights. Here's Why It Matters
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lawyer Wrongly Entangled in Child Porn Case Pursues State Bar About Grievances Policies
- 2Tributes Pour in for Pioneering Miami Judge, UM Adviser
- 3Decision of the Day: Court Rules on Judgment Motions Over Police Killing of Pet Dog While Executing Warrant
- 4Dechert Sues Former Attorney For Not Returning Compensation
- 5Elevate Acquires Intellectual Property Research Provider Sagacious IP
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
