Opinion ID: 4550523
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 2014-2015 Appeal

Text: Mr. Salvattera appealed and filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of the provision of the CPO requiring him to vacate the apartment building, arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to order him to do so, given that he lived in a separate unit and did not share a residence with Ms. Ramirez. This court granted an administrative stay of the vacate provision from the date the CPO was entered; the court then held oral argument on the emergency motion, and, on December 15, 2014, granted a stay of the vacate provision pending appeal (leaving the remainder of the CPO in place). Salvattera v. Ramirez, 105 A.3d 1003, 1009 (D.C. 2014) (“Salvattera I”). On March 26, 2015, this court decided the appeal, (…continued) qualifies as an intrafamily offense if it was committed against a person to whom the offender is or was related through blood; adoption; legal custody; marriage; divorce; domestic partnership; sharing a residence; a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship; or with whom the respondent has a child in common. Because Ms. Ramirez and Mr. Salvattera were not related in any of these ways, the offense was not an intrafamily offense. However, sexual abuse is a predicate offense under the IntraFamily Offenses Act pursuant to § 16-1001(12). See infra note 8. 8 rejecting Mr. Salvattera’s challenge, lifting the stay, and affirming the entirety of the CPO. Salvattera v. Ramirez, 111 A.3d 1032, 1034-38 (D.C. 2015) (“Salvattera II”). 2 On remand, the trial court ordered Mr. Salvattera to vacate the apartment building by June 9, 2015.