The California Court of Appeal has upheld a domestic violence restraining order against Philip Ecdao, affirming that he recklessly caused bodily injury to Rachel Moran during a confrontation over their shared dog. The ruling, issued on November 9, 2026, is significant as it reinforces the court's authority to issue protective orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

The case, docket number B342784, arose from a dispute between Ecdao and Moran regarding the custody of their dog, Ollie. The court's decision impacts individuals involved in domestic disputes and clarifies the legal standards for issuing restraining orders in California.

Background

Rachel Moran and Philip Ecdao had a long-term relationship that lasted eight years. During that time, they shared custody of Ollie, a shepherd dog. After their breakup in 2021 or 2022, they continued to alternate custody of the dog. However, tensions escalated in May 2024 when Ecdao indicated he would be moving out of state and Moran refused to relinquish the dog.

The situation came to a head on June 20, 2024, when Moran attempted to put Ollie in her car. Ecdao and his fiancée, Melanie Ortiz, allegedly tried to forcibly take the dog from her. Following the altercation, Moran sought both a civil harassment restraining order against Ortiz and a domestic violence restraining order against Ecdao.

The case proceeded to an evidentiary hearing on November 5, 2024, where multiple witnesses, including Moran, Ecdao, Ortiz, and Officer Brandon Leon, provided testimony. The trial court ultimately found in favor of Moran, leading to Ecdao's appeal.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to issue a domestic violence restraining order against Ecdao. The court found substantial evidence supporting the claim that Ecdao recklessly caused bodily injury to Moran during the confrontation. The trial court determined that Moran's testimony was credible and that Ecdao's actions during the struggle over the dog led to her injuries.

The court stated, "Moran testified that while she was placing the dog in the back of her car, Ecdao and Ortiz ambushed her to retrieve the dog."

The appellate court also noted that the trial court had the discretion to issue the restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The court found that the evidence presented, including photographs of Moran's bruises, supported the conclusion that Ecdao's actions were reckless and resulted in injury.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for individuals involved in domestic disputes in California. It reinforces the ability of courts to issue protective orders to prevent further incidents of domestic violence. The decision clarifies that the courts can consider the credibility of witnesses and the circumstances surrounding an incident when determining whether to issue a restraining order.

The ruling also emphasizes that the court can grant exclusive possession of a shared pet in domestic violence cases, as seen in this case where the court awarded custody of Ollie to Moran. This aspect of the ruling could influence future cases involving pet custody disputes in the context of domestic violence.

What's Next

Ecdao has the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There is also a related case pending concerning Ortiz's appeal from the civil harassment restraining order issued against her in the same proceeding, which is being handled separately as case number B342778.