Ramirez v. Salvattera, No. 18-FM-490

Decision Date23 July 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-FM-490
Citation232 A.3d 169
Parties Isela RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. Alfredo SALVATTERA, Appellee.
CourtD.C. Court of Appeals

Robert Ziff, Washington, with whom Warren T. Allen II, Nicole Grimm, Elizabeth Malone, and Donald P. Salzman Washington, were on the brief, for appellant.

Jennifer Williams, Public Defender Service, with whom Samia Fam, Public Defender Service, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Glickman and Fisher, Associate Judges.

Opinion by Associate Judge Glickman, dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment, at page 191-92.

Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge:

Appellant Isela Ramirez appeals the trial court's partial denial of her motion for a one-year extension of her Civil Protection Order ("CPO"). The trial court issued the original CPO in 2014 based upon its finding that there was good cause to believe that appellee Alfredo Salvattera committed a criminal offense – misdemeanor sexual abuse or sexual contact – against Ms. Ramirez, and it extended the CPO in two one-year increments, once in 2015 and again in 2016. In 2017, Ms. Ramirez moved for a third extension. The trial court granted a temporary extension for the duration of proceedings and, in 2018, denied Ms. Ramirez's motion for another one-year extension, instead granting an extension for only three months. On appeal, Ms. Ramirez contends that, in so doing, the trial court abused its discretion.

Today we clarify and elaborate upon the legal test, as articulated in our precedents, for extending a CPO. Specifically, we hold that the trial court must conduct a two-part inquiry as follows. First, the trial court must determine whether there is "good cause" to extend the CPO. D.C. Code § 16-1005(d) (2012 Repl. & 2020 Supp.). "Good cause" is defined as a cognizable danger that the respondent will commit or threaten to commit a criminal offense against the petitioner in the coming year if the CPO is not extended. See D.C. Code § 16-1005(c), (d) ; Cruz-Foster v. Foster , 597 A.2d 927, 929-30 (D.C. 1991). In making this determination, the court must evaluate the entire mosaic of the case, including the parties' relationship and interactions both before and after the issuance of the CPO and any prior extension of the CPO, as well as the parties' current circumstances. If the trial court finds such good cause, it may extend the CPO; if it does not find such good cause, it may not extend the CPO. Second, if the trial court has found good cause, it must balance the harms to each party that may result from the extension or the lack thereof to determine whether to, in fact, extend the CPO. This balancing will also inform the scope and parameters of the extension, including the duration and conditions of the extended CPO. We review the trial court's decision for abuse of discretion.

Having clarified this standard, and, cognizant of the fact that more than two years have elapsed since Ms. Ramirez last moved to extend the CPO, we vacate the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings so that the trial court may consider the current circumstances of the case with the benefit of this opinion.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This case has a long and complex history, which is summarized below for clarity.

A. The 2014 CPO

On March 28, 2014, Ms. Ramirez filed a petition for a CPO, alleging that Mr. Salvattera sexually assaulted her in October 2013. At a nine-day hearing held before Judge Fern Flanagan Saddler from May to July 2014, the trial court heard testimony from Ms. Ramirez, as well as from a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner ("SANE nurse") who testified generally about sexual assault; a SANE nurse who examined Ms. Ramirez in October 2013; an employee at a nutrition center that Ms. Ramirez frequented; Ms. Ramirez's sister; and an investigator for the Public Defender Service ("PDS") (which represented Mr. Salvattera). The court found the following facts.

Since September 2001, Ms. Ramirez had lived in a third-floor unit of an apartment building in Northwest Washington, D.C. with her children, and, for a time, her father. At the time of the 2014 hearing, Ms. Ramirez was thirty-one years old and worked at an herbal medicine store. During the period relevant to the CPO petition, Mr. Salvattera lived in a first-floor unit of the same building, where he acted as a building manager. Before the events that gave rise to the petition, Ms. Ramirez had visited Mr. Salvattera's apartment several times to discuss rent. During one visit by Mr. Salvattera to Ms. Ramirez's apartment in order to do some work, he told her that he wanted to hug her and that he had dreamed about her wearing a red dress.

On October 26, 2013, Mr. Salvattera sent Ms. Ramirez a text message stating that he wanted to discuss the rent with her father. On October 28, Ms. Ramirez went to Mr. Salvattera's apartment around 10:00 p.m. to discuss rent with him, first knocking on his door and then on his window to be let in. She stayed at Mr. Salvattera's apartment for about an hour discussing rent. During this time, he showed her a picture that he had taken of her by the trash can outside the apartment building. Ms. Ramirez had been concerned about eviction, and, when they discussed it, Mr. Salvattera said that she could be out on the street at any time. Ms. Ramirez had had two beers with dinner earlier in the evening; while she was at Mr. Salvattera's apartment, he offered her sangria and she drank three glasses. She did not see him pour the third glass. Five minutes after she took a sip of it, she had a stomachache and vomited blood. She remembered nothing until she woke up in Mr. Salvattera's bed, naked from the waist down. When she asked Mr. Salvattera what happened, he said that they took their clothes off and "what had to happen happened." Ms. Ramirez began to yell and cry, and she said that she would call the police. Mr. Salvattera denied doing anything and told her to get out. Ms. Ramirez left the apartment. On October 29, she went to a clinic and then a hospital. At the hospital, she was examined by a SANE nurse and spoke to a detective; Ms. Ramirez reported no pain or injury to the SANE nurse, other than pain in her chest, and the SANE nurse found no forensic evidence of sexual assault.

Prior to the October 2013 incident, Ms. Ramirez had experienced anxiety and panic attacks, had taken medication for anxiety, and had a history of vomiting and bleeding. After the incident, she began to experience anxiety, panic, and fear, particularly when she passed Mr. Salvattera's apartment on her way in and out of the building. She frequently saw Mr. Salvattera in and around the building after the October 2013 incident, but no additional incidents occurred.

On August 26, 2014, at the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Saddler found good cause to believe that Mr. Salvattera committed a criminal offense, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed misdemeanor sexual abuse or sexual contact against Ms. Ramirez.1 The judge issued a CPO for one year, which ordered Mr. Salvattera to refrain from assaulting, threatening, or harassing Ms. Ramirez; to stay 100 feet away from Ms. Ramirez, and to vacate the apartment building by September 12, 2014.

B. The 2014-2015 Appeal

Mr. Salvattera appealed and filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of the provision of the CPO requiring him to vacate the apartment building, arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to do so, given that he lived in a separate unit and did not share a residence with Ms. Ramirez. This court granted an administrative stay of the vacate provision from the date the CPO was entered; the court then held oral argument on the emergency motion, and, on December 15, 2014, granted a stay of the vacate provision pending appeal (leaving the remainder of the CPO in place). Salvattera v. Ramirez , 105 A.3d 1003, 1009 (D.C. 2014) (" Salvattera I "). On March 26, 2015, this court decided the appeal, rejecting Mr. Salvattera's challenge, lifting the stay, and affirming the entirety of the CPO. Salvattera v. Ramirez , 111 A.3d 1032, 1034-38 (D.C. 2015) (" Salvattera II ").2 On remand, the trial court ordered Mr. Salvattera to vacate the apartment building by June 9, 2015.

C. The 2015 CPO Extension

In August 2015, Ms. Ramirez moved to extend the CPO. Judge Marisa J. Demeo presided over a three-day evidentiary hearing, during which she heard testimony from Ms. Ramirez, Mr. Salvattera, and a PDS investigator. She found that there were two incidents in which Ms. Ramirez and Mr. Salvattera had encountered each other since the CPO had been issued – both of which occurred before the vacate provision of the CPO was enforced. On May 19, 2015, Ms. Ramirez was waiting at a bus stop in her neighborhood when Mr. Salvattera drove by in his car; he saw her and promptly drove away. Then, on June 1, 2015, Mr. Salvattera was carrying a board up the stairs of the apartment building, saw Ms. Ramirez, and laughed at her in a "mocking" way, which made her feel "scared and horrified." The judge did not find these incidents to rise to the level of CPO violations or to merit findings of contempt.

Judge Demeo also considered the "entire mosaic" of the parties' relationship and history, including what occurred prior to the October 29, 2013 incident. She found that Mr. Salvattera had lived in the building since 2010, and that Ms. Ramirez had visited his unit several times, including to sell him products, and to borrow money. Ms. Ramirez had also taken two female friends on two different occasions to Mr. Salvattera's apartment to ask for work and money for them; Ms. Ramirez felt that Mr. Salvattera was inappropriately romantic with both of them. In addition, Ms. Ramirez had been to Mr. Salvattera's apartment for social visits, including talking with him about marital issues with her husband, bringing her kids over for pizza, and coming over wearing a wig, at which point...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Carome v. Carome
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 2021
    ...Ms. Carome's request for a CPO. Ms. Carome filed a timely appeal. Prior to oral arguments in the instant case, this court decided Ramirez v. Salvattera , which clarified the "good cause" standard used when considering the extension of a CPO. 232 A.3d 169 (D.C. 2020) . Although the facts in......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT