Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5291317/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

2,136 chars

19
that the perpetrator is not described as a boyfriend, husband, cohabitant, or as fitting any of the
other relations listed in the domestic violence statute (Fam. Code, § 6211). In addition, the
report only related one incident that happened on May 5, yet defendant’s position was that
plaintiff relied on multiple domestic violence acts that happened in April and May 2019 in
attempting to prove defendant committed a nuisance.
       The May 5 report states, “Susp used one of his feet to kick the victim’s door, as a result
the bottom portion of the door broke [sic]”; the report indicates the crime occurred on “5/5/19
2300 HRS” at the apartment complex where defendant lived; and the officer who took the
report and signed his name checked a box stating “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” (capitalization in
original).
       The report thus fulfilled all statutory requirements: (1) It was in writing; (2) executed
within 180 days from when plaintiff sought to terminate defendant’s tenancy; (3) written by an
officer in the officer’s official capacity; and (4) the tenant filed the report alleging she was a
victim of domestic violence. Requiring that the perpetrator be named and that his relationship
to the victim be described would run counter to the fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation
that “courts should not add provisions to a statute.” (Lee v. Kotyluk (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 719,
726; see Security Pacific National Bank v. Wozab (1990) 51 Cal.3d 991, 998 [“This rule has
been codified in California as section 1858, which provides that a court must not ‘insert what
has been omitted’ from a statute”].) In addition, the Legislature included an identity component
in section 1161.3, subdivision (a)(1)(D), regarding third-party statements.16 Thus, we infer the
Legislature was aware of a potential identity component but deliberately chose to exclude it
from police reports. (See e.g., American Coatings Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446, 465; Prang v. Amen (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 246, 257-
258.) Likewise, as the documentation needed is only that a tenant “filed the report alleging she

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text