S.V. v. Gitlin CA1/4

── S.V. v. Gitlin CA1/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 S.V. v. Gitlin CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR S.V., Plaintiff and Respondent, A172922 v. (Alameda County TOMAS GITLIN, Super. Ct. No. 24FL095158) Defendant and Appellant. Tomas Gitlin appeals from a three-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued against him at the request of S.V., who was formerly in a dating relationship with Gitlin, under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.1). He contends the trial court abused its discretion by granting S.V.’s request for a DVRO because there was no substantial evidence to support the court’s findings. We affirm. BACKGROUND2 On October 11, 2024, S.V. filed a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order. The request alleged that on or around June 22, 2024, S.V. and Gitlin had consensual sex with a condom and fell asleep together. After some time, S.V. woke up to Gitlin attempting to insert his penis into 1 All further statutory references are to the Family Code. 2 We recite only those facts as are necessary to resolve the issues raised on this appeal. her vagina. Gitlin then had sex with S.V. S.V. did not have the opportunity to consent because she was asleep and experienced extreme discomfort due to the lack of consent. After Gitlin completed the sex act, S.V. asked whether he wore a condom the entire time. Gitlin informed S.V. that he wore a condom only part of the time they were having sex. S.V. felt violated and upset because she had previously informed Gitlin that they must use a condom every time they have sex. The request also alleged other acts by Gitlin, after S.V. broke up with him, that made her suffer fear, stress, and anxiety. Gitlin messaged a mutual friend via a social media app wherein Gitlin wrote that he “unintentionally sexually assaulted” S.V. and requested the friend reach out to her and “make sure she is getting the help she needs.” Gitlin also sought to establish care for therapy services with a therapist who used to work in S.V.’s therapy practice. S.V. alleged that Gitlin intentionally picked this therapist so that the therapist would reach out to S.V. to confer regarding Gitlin’s case to share his perspective of the incident, which she did. S.V. also alleged that she received various notes from Gitlin on Spotify between June and September 2024. The trial court held a hearing on January 16, 2025. At the hearing, S.V. testified that everything in her DVRO request was true. The trial court confirmed with S.V. that she had an agreement with Gitlin to always use a condom during sex. S.V. also acknowledged that there was at least one prior occasion where they had condomless sex and she had verbally agreed to that encounter. However, S.V. exchanged text messages with Gitlin after having sex without a condom to clarify that she wanted to continue using condoms going forward.  The trial court also asked Gitlin various questions. Gitlin denied waking up S.V. to have sex and stated that she had initiated condomless sex multiple times before. Gitlin informed the court that S.V. had laid out parameters for them to have condomless sex and he believed she was initiating condomless sex because he had met those parameters at that time. However, he never confirmed before