NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LOUIS PATRICK DI STEFANO, SR., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3180

)

REBECCA BAUER LONG, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed August 9, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Cecelia Moore 

Wilhite, Senior Judge.

Matthew E. Thatcher of The Solomon 

Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for 

Appellant. 

No appearance for Appellee Rebecca 

Bauer Long.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.

Louis Patrick Di Stefano, Sr., appeals from a final judgment of injunction 

for protection against dating violence (after notice) granting the petitioner, Rebecca 

Bauer Long, a permanent injunction against him. Because the evidence failed to 

establish that Long had reasonable cause to believe that she was in imminent danger of 

becoming the victim of another act of dating violence, we reverse.
- 2 -

Pursuant to section 784.046(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2017): 

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, or any person who has reasonable cause to 

believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the 

victim of an act of dating violence . . . has standing in the 

circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for 

protection against dating violence.

Although the statute appears to create two categories of potential victims, that 

appearance is illusory; 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. Alderman v. Thomas, 141 So. 3d 668, 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) 

("In either case, the person must have reasonable cause to believe he or she is in 

imminent danger of becoming the victim of an act of dating violence in the future."). 

In her petition, Long alleged that in March 2018, Di Stefano had "yanked" 

her arm with enough force that she had been thrown across the bedroom. She also 

alleged that in June 2018, following a verbal confrontation in front of Di Stefano's house, 

she had driven off in her car as he gave chase on foot, screaming obscenities at her. 

Long alleged that she had reasonable cause to believe that she was in imminent danger 

of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence because "[t]he Respondent has 

serious anger issues and has repeatedly called [her] names, yelled obscenities at [her], 

threw [her] across the bedroom, and ran after [her] in an aggressive manner on foot 

while [she] was in [her] vehicle fleeing from him," and that "[t]he Respondent has a long 

and documented history of violence towards women." She alleged further that she 

feared that Di Stefano, who "lives in close proximity to [her] where [she] live[s] alone 
- 3 -

with [her] children," would "commit violence against [her] and/or [her] children," that he 

"drinks excessive amounts of alcohol on a daily basis," that he "has a violent past," and 

that "[she is] in fear for [her] life at this time."

At the hearing on the petition, Long testified that Di Stefano has a violent 

past, that he becomes violent when he gets angry, and that she was afraid. Di Stefano 

did not refute Long's testimony that during the first alleged incident, he "got really angry, 

took [her] by the arm, slung [her] across his bedroom, and [she] fell on the floor." 

Although their testimony regarding the second alleged incident was generally 

consistent, their perspective of the events differed considerably. Long testified that she 

had gone to Di Stefano's house after they had broken up to "speak to him about some 

relationship issues" and that Di Stefano had become "enraged" and had "run[] at her," 

causing her to jump into her car and speed away, with him pursuing her on foot 

"screaming obscenities." Di Stefano testified that Long had sped away after angrily 

confronting him and one of his minor children about his continuing relationship with his 

ex-wife. Di Stefano did not deny that he had pursued Long but testified that he had 

done so to admonish her for speeding because there were children in the neighborhood 

and also for "discuss[ing] [his] sex life with one of [his] children." During the chase, 

Long had pulled over onto the median to stop and film Di Stefano with her cellphone.

A trial court has broad discretion in entering an injunction for protection 

against dating violence, but the injunction must be supported by competent, substantial 

evidence. See Alderman, 141 So. 3d at 672 (citing Arnold v. Santana, 122 So. 3d 512, 

513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)). On appeal, Di Stefano challenges only the sufficiency of the 

evidence establishing that Long has reasonable cause to believe that she is in imminent 
- 4 -

danger of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence. 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." Toubail v. White, 141 So. 3d 649, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) 

(quoting Gill v. Gill, 50 So. 3d 772, 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)).

We agree with Di Stefano that the evidence was insufficient to establish 

that Long has reasonable cause to believe that she is in imminent danger of becoming 

the victim of another act of dating violence. The parties testified that they live in the 

same community—"a thousand feet from each other"—and engage in activities that 

cause them to bump into each other fairly regularly. But Long did not allege, let alone 

present evidence, that, for example, Di Stefano has stalked her or harassed her or 

threatened her with violence. Although she alleged in her petition that Di Stefano has a 

"history of violence towards women," her testimony at the hearing established that the 

basis for that allegation was hearsay, and her related testimony that "[t]here's been 

injunctions filed against him in the past" and "[h]e's had a lot of interaction with the 

court" was both vague and wholly unsupported by any evidence.

Long's allegations that Di Stefano has repeatedly called her names and 

yelled obscenities at her do not give rise to reasonable cause to believe that she is in 

imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence. Cf. Douglas 

v. Douglas, 252 So. 3d 791, 793 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("An injunction against domestic 

violence requires malicious harassment that consists at the very least of some threat of 

imminent violence, which excludes mere uncivil behavior that causes distress or 
- 5 -

annoyance." (quoting Arnold, 122 So. 3d at 514)). Nor does her conclusory and wholly 

unsupported allegation that Di Stefano has "serious anger issues."

With respect to the parties' behavior within their roughly year-long 

relationship and the history of their relationship as a whole, we in no way condone 

Di Stefano's actions, but their testimony suggested a relationship in which both had 

difficulty controlling their tempers. Unfortunately, the manner in which they conducted 

themselves at the hearing only reinforced that suggestion. The trial court was 

repeatedly forced to warn both parties not to talk over each other; not to talk over the 

court; not to report what other people, who were not present, had supposedly said about 

the other party; not to relate irrelevant instances of each other's past behavior; and 

generally not to engage in unruly and disrespectful conduct. Finally, the court stated: 

"That's enough, that's enough, that's enough, that's enough. You—obviously you all 

need an injunction to stay apart. If you [Di Stefano] decide to file one against [Long], 

you may do so. But for the meantime—," at which point Di Stefano interrupted. 

Subsequently, the bailiff had to verbally step in. The parties' arguments eventually 

devolved into bickering over Di Stefano's "glaring" at Long at their community pool and 

the need to avoid each other at community softball games.
- 6 -

We sympathize with the trial judge, who demonstrated extraordinary 

patience with both parties, and we wholeheartedly agree that the parties need to stay 

away from each other. But Long failed to present any evidence to support the 

conclusion that she has reasonable cause to believe that she is in imminent danger of 

becoming the victim of another act of dating violence. Accordingly, we must reverse the 

injunction.

Reversed.

NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.