Another Corporate ISP v. Creely CA1/2
A169280M
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 16, 2024Background
- Another Corporate ISP LLC (dba MonkeyBrains) sought workplace violence protective orders against Jay Edward Martin and Elizabeth Creely under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8.
- The orders aimed to protect two MonkeyBrains employees, Rudy Rucker and Alejandro Menendez, after alleged violence and threats occurring adjacent to MonkeyBrains’ warehouse property.
- Martin (appellant) challenged the orders on appeal, arguing that § 527.8 did not apply because the conduct occurred on an adjacent vacant parcel rather than within MonkeyBrains’ property lines.
- The trial court granted the protective orders against Martin (and Creely), finding the conduct sufficient under the statute.
- The appellate court reviewed only Martin’s appeal, as there was no notice of appeal filed by Creely.
- The appellate opinion was modified on rehearing but affirmed the decision, leaving the judgment unchanged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of § 527.8 (Location of Conduct) | Violence/threats near workplace count | Must occur within property boundaries | Statute applies to violence/threats in immediate vicinity |
| Showing of Prejudicial Error on Appeal | Trial court’s order warranted | No error or prejudice shown | Martin failed burden to show error or prejudice |
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Order | Employees threatened or harassed | Evidence insufficient, not on property | Enough evidence; orders upheld |
| Arguments Raised on Appeal | N/A | New arguments on reply/at oral argument | Court will not consider new arguments raised late |
Key Cases Cited
- Grappo v. McMills, 11 Cal.App.5th 996 (appellate burden is on appellant to demonstrate error and prejudice)
- United Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, 36 Cal.App.5th 142 (appellate arguments must be supported by specific legal analysis)
- North Coast Village Condo. Ass’n v. Phillips, 94 Cal.App.5th 866 (workplace violence protective orders can apply to conduct near, not only on, employer property)
- Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., 100 Cal.App.4th 1066 (suggestions of error must be supported by argument or authority)
- Bishop v. The Bishop’s School, 86 Cal.App.5th 893 (appellants must support arguments and cite the record to demonstrate reversible error)
- People v. Carrasco, 59 Cal.4th 924 (court will not consider issues raised for first time at oral argument)