Thursday, January 22, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Refiles Opinion to Lend Parties Anonymity, Using Initials
Panel Vacates Dec. 2 Decision Which Referred to Appellant, Respondent by Name, Issues New One
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Four of the Court of Appeal for this district has issued an opinion referring to the parties by their initials—something not uncommon is cases dealing with domestic violence restraining orders—but with one unusual aspect: it previously handed down that same decision using the actual names of the appellant and the respondent.
The initial opinion was filed Dec. 2. Bearing the caption, Robert W. Rinker II v. Cindi Rinker, it was not certified for publication.
However, following a request for publication by the Family Violence Appellate Project, the justices changed their minds and on Dec. 26 directed that it be included in the Official Reports. Even before the opinion was certified for publication, it was provided online by the Judicial Council, an open source, and by such subscriber services as Lexis; after the certification order, it appeared in supplements published by at least three newspapers, including the MetNews.
The Dec. 2 opinion remains readily accessible on the Internet.
Request Accommodated
. But then on Jan. 5, the appellant asked Div. Four to substitute initials for his actual name and that of his ex-wife. Notwithstanding the identities of the Rinkers having already been made public, the justices on Tuesday vacated their Dec. 2 opinion and refiled it as R.R., II, v. C.R.
(Although a court of appeal normally retains jurisdiction over a case for only 30 days, that period begins running anew, under California Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(B), when an unpublished opinion is ordered to be published.)
In re-issuing the opinion substituting initials for names, no allusion is made in the body of the opinion to the previous incarnation of the decision.
Justice Audrey B. Collins authored the Dec. 2 opinion and Tuesday’s rendition, joined in by Presiding Justice Helen Zukin and Justice Armen Tamzarian.
Commissioner Erred
Collins wrote that Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Dennis F. Hernandez erred in denying an order sought by the ex-husband pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”), codified at Family Code §6200 et seq. Hernandez focused on the ex-wife’s mental problems and lack of intent to harass.
The justice said, in the Dec. 2 version of her opinion:
“Robert was not required under the DVPA to show that Cindi intended to threaten or intimidate him….Nor was he required to establish a probability of future abuse.”
She pointed to §6300 which authorizes issuance of a restraining order based on “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” Collins continued:
“Moreover, the court failed to properly consider the totality of circumstances. Indeed, apart from its consideration of Cindi’s mental state, the court did not identify any countervailing evidence that would weigh against the DVRO. As such, based on largely uncontradicted evidence of past abuse, which the court found to be ‘alarming,’ the evidence presented at the hearing permitted only one reasonable conclusion—Robert met his burden of proof for entry of the DVRO.”
Violence Not Required
Collins noted:
“The DVPA includes a wide category of abusive conduct which we broadly construe in order to accomplish the purpose of the statute….The statute expressly encompasses not just physical abuse, but also stalking, harassing, telephone contact, and conduct that ‘disturb[s] the peace of the other party,’ which includes acts of coercive control, such as ‘monitoring the other party’s movements.’ ”
She recited:
“The court’s comments indicate that it largely found Robert credible, but it nevertheless ignored his evidence of Cindi’s escalating behavior, including relentless calling, texting, and ringing his doorbell, waiting in his neighborhood for hours, following and/or chasing him in her car while driving erratically, entering his home and car without permission and refusing to leave, and threatening to harass his work and parents if he did not comply with her demands.”
San Fernando Valley attorney Ben Gharagozli represented Robert Rinker and Cindi Rinker was in pro per.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company