A person who has suffered harassment may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment. Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6, subd. (a) discusses the parameters for Harassment and temporary restraining order and injunction.
(a) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.
As used in this subdivision:
(1) "Unlawful violence" is any assault or battery, or stalking as prohibited in Section 646.9 of the Penal Code, but shall not include lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others.
(2) "Credible threat of violence" is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose.
(3) "Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, fax, or computer e-mail. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
......
(i) The prevailing party in any action brought under this section may be awarded court costs and attorney's fees, if any.
(j) Any willful disobedience of any temporary restraining order or injunction granted under this section is punishable pursuant to Section 273.6 of the Penal Code.
(k)(1) A person subject to a protective order issued under this section shall not own, possess, purchase, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive a firearm while the protective order is in effect.
None of the actions committed should be for any legitimate purposes. The party bringing forth a petitioner for harassment or civil restraining orders need not necessarily be required to testify as to emotional distress if such testimony would be cumulative and adequate evidence of harassment has otherwise been presented sufficient to support the court's conclusion that such distress has been suffered. The course of conduct complained of should be such that a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.
The purpose of a prohibitory injunction is to prevent future harm to the applicant by ordering the defendant to refrain from doing a particular act; consequently, injunctive relief lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs that have been completed, and it should neither serve as punishment for past acts, nor be exercised in the absence of any evidence establishing the reasonable probability the acts will be repeated in the future. Statute providing for injunction against unlawful harassment is intended to protect the individual's state constitutional right to pursue safety, happiness, and privacy by providing quick relief, through an expedited procedure for injunction, to harassed persons. Statute providing for issuance of injunction against harassment is designed to supplement existing common law torts of invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress by providing quick relief to harassment victims threatened with great or irreparable injury. Statute providing for issuance of injunction against harassment was enacted to protect individual's right to pursue safety, happiness and privacy as guaranteed by California Constitution.
Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that former patient's harassment caused psychologist "significant emotional distress" as required for psychologist to obtain temporary restraining order against ongoing harassment, even if psychologist did not give direct testimony on that issue; circumstantial evidence showed psychologist had been followed and spied upon, that she received repeated phone calls and threatening letters, including one in which patient alluded to committing suicide in psychologist's presence, and psychologist's declaration in support of petition stated that harassment caused significant emotional distress.
In California, speech that constitutes "harassment" is not constitutionally protected, and the victim of the harassment may obtain injunctive relief.
~Arshak Bartoumian, Esq.
Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates
