MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge
Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Defendant's Attorney: Dana A. Friedlander of Law Offices of Dana A. Friedlander

Description:

Tampa, FL - Domestic Violence lawyer represented Appellant with appeal0ing a final judgment of injunction for protection against dating violenc4e.

On October 13, 2020, Bartoletta filed her petition for an
injunction for protection against dating violence against Santos
following an episode of dating violence that occurred in the early
hours of October 9, 2020. In response to that petition, the trial
court entered a temporary injunction in Bartoletta's favor to remain
in effect until a final hearing could take place. During the final
hearing the following month, Bartoletta testified as to the events
that occurred on October 9, 2020.
Bartoletta told the court that she and Santos were involved in
a romantic relationship. Although Santos was never violent
towards her and had never threatened her previously, on October 9
he attacked and choked her, causing her significant injuries. She
also testified that, during the attack but before she was able to
escape, Santos said to her, "Holy shit, you're good!"
In the time between the entering of the temporary injunction
and the final hearing, Bartoletta acknowledged that Santos had not
3
attempted to contact her even though he knew her home and work
addresses, her phone number, and her social media information.
"While 'a trial court has broad discretion in entering an
injunction for protection against violence[,] . . . it must be
supported by competent, substantial evidence.' " Frost v. Wilson,
320 So. 3d 820, 823-24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (alteration and
omission in original) (quoting Brungart v. Pullen, 296 So. 3d 973,
976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)). We conduct a de novo review on the
question of "[w]hether the evidence is legally sufficient to support
issuance of the injunction." Id. at 824 (quoting Schultz v. Moore,
282 So. 3d 152, 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)).
To obtain a final judgment of injunction for protection against
dating violence, the petitioner must show "reasonable cause to
believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of an
act of dating violence in the future." Alderman v. Thomas, 141 So.
3d 668, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). "When considering whether a
petitioner has such reasonable cause, 'the trial court must consider
the current allegations, the parties' behavior within the
relationship, and the history of the relationship as a whole.' " Di
4
Stefano v. Long, 279 So. 3d 758, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (quoting
Toubail v. White, 141 So. 3d 649, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)).
Section 784.046(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2020), provides for an
injunction for protection against dating violence. Pursuant to
section 784.046(2)(b):
Any person who is the victim of dating violence and has
reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent
danger of becoming the victim of another act of dating
violence . . . has standing in the circuit court to file a
sworn petition for an injunction for protection against
dating violence.
It is well recognized that "regardless of whether the petitioner has
been the victim of dating violence in the past, the petitioner must
show that he or she has reasonable cause to believe that he or she
is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of an act of dating
violence in the future." Di Stefano, 279 So. 3d at 759 (citing
Alderman, 141 So. 3d at 669).
Here, the evidence presented was such that the trial court
could have properly found that Bartoletta was the victim of one
instance of dating violence by Santos. However, on appeal Santos
argues that there was no competent, substantial evidence to
support a reasonable belief that Bartoletta was in imminent danger
5
of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence. In
response, Bartoletta argues that she presented competent,
substantial evidence during the final hearing, including her detailed
description of the violent episode, photographs of injuries resulting
from the incident, and testimony regarding her physical and mental
conditions following the violent episode. Additionally, she argues
that Santos's statement of "Holy shit, you're good!" creates a
reasonable belief that Santos knew the extent of the violence in
which he was engaging, and "since Santos had not accomplished
his goal of ending her life on the night in question, he would
attempt to complete his task [to kill Bartoletta] if allowed contact
with her again." She also notes that Santos owns a gun and that it
was on the bedside table in the room in which the attack began.1

In support of her argument, Bartoletta emphasizes the short
period of time that elapsed between the dating violence incident and
the filing and granting of the final judgment of injunction for
protection against dating violence. She argues that case law
1
The trial court did not make any factual findings about the
alleged gun but directed Santos to turn over any gun, should he
own or possess one, to the sheriff's office upon the entry of the final
judgment.
6
reversing final judgments is distinguishable from the present case
because of alleged remoteness in time in those cases. However, the
amount of time that has elapsed between alleged dating violence
incidents and the filing or granting of injunctions for protection
against dating violence is not dispositive.
Recently, in Brungart, this court reversed a final judgment of
injunction for protection against dating violence where the
petitioner filed for the injunction two weeks after an alleged episode
of dating violence. 296 So. 3d at 975. There, "the evidence failed to
establish that [the petitioner] had reasonable cause to believe that
she was in imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act
of dating violence." Id. In that case, the petitioner testified that she
and Brungart were involved in a physical altercation over her
cellphone. Id. After the altercation, Brungart continued to send
text messages to her, went to her apartment complex, and "after
learning that she had moved out, represented himself to the
property manager as a furniture delivery person in an attempt to
find out more information." Id. at 976. Further, he attempted to
contact the petitioner through her son and ex-husband. Id.
Brungart also sent videos to the petitioner's ex-husband showing
7
Brungart and the petitioner engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Id. Even so, this court determined that "there was no evidence to
support a conclusion that [the petitioner] had reasonable cause to
believe that she was in imminent danger of physical violence[,] . . .
there was no evidence to support a conclusion that [the petitioner]
had reasonable cause to believe that she was in imminent danger of
being 'stalked[,]' " and Brungart's attempts to contact the petitioner
fell "short of meeting the statutory definition of 'harassment.' " Id.
at 977-78.
Here, the record supports the trial court's conclusion that
Bartoletta was the victim of one instance of dating violence. But the
record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support the finding
that Bartoletta had reasonable cause to believe she was in
imminent danger of another act of physical violence. Bartoletta
acknowledged that Santos has not attempted to contact her, and
the incident that occurred on October 9, 2020, appears to be
isolated. Before the night of the incident, Santos had never been
physically violent, and he had never previously threatened her.
Although the trial court indicated that Bartoletta's testimony was
dependable and detail-oriented, this one instance of dating violence
8
alone is insufficient to obtain an injunction for protection against
dating violence. See Brungart, 296 So. 3d at 976; see also
Alderman, 141 So. 3d at 669 ("It is not sufficient to have been the
victim of one incident of dating violence in the past.").

Outcome: Therefore, we reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against
dating violence entered by the trial court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: