Christina Taft v. Paul Barresi
5:24-cv-01930
| C.D. Cal. | Apr 18, 2025Background
- Christina Taft, proceeding pro se, filed suit alleging that defendants Paul Barresi (a private investigator) and Adam Waldman (business agent for John Depp) engaged in harassment, intimidation, and interference with witnesses and law enforcement from 2020 to 2024.
- Taft's initial and amended complaints articulated various claims—including civil conspiracy, RICO, invasion of privacy, harassment, emotional distress, and related California and federal violations—with factual allegations spanning many years and involving multiple third-party witnesses.
- The focus of the present opinion is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction seeking to prevent ongoing alleged harassment and intimidation by Barresi.
- Defendant Barresi opposed the injunction and moved to dismiss; the case includes evidence from declarations and a patchwork of exhibits, some admitted for limited purposes, with several challenged for hearsay, relevance, and other evidentiary issues.
- The magistrate judge analyzed Taft’s motion under the Winter v. NRDC four-factor test—likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—and addressed evidentiary objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of Success on Harassment | Barresi engaged in threats, intimidation, witness tampering | Evidence is vague, speculative, or remote in time | No likelihood of success; evidence is speculative and non-specific |
| Irreparable Harm | Faces ongoing harm, intimidation deters witnesses, threatens due process | No imminent, concrete threat shown | Harm is speculative and delayed; no irreparable threat established |
| Balance of Equities | Injunction would prevent harassment with minimal burden to Barresi | Injunction would impede Barresi’s case investigation | Balance does not tip to Taft; risks to both sides, relief already granted elsewhere |
| Public Interest | Injunction serves justice, protects process and witnesses | Injunction unwarranted, based on personal dispute | Not shown; no evidence enjoining Barresi advances public interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (Movant must make a clear showing of entitlement to extraordinary relief for preliminary injunction)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (Four-part test for preliminary injunctions and requirement of demonstrating likely irreparable harm)
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (Substantially identical standards for preliminary injunctions and TROs)
- Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1999) (Significant threat of irreparable injury required for preliminary injunction)