Harris v. Stampolis, 248 Cal. App. 4th 484

Background

Plaintiff Susan Harris, principal at Peterson Middle School, sought a civil harassment injunction (Code Civ. Proc. § 527.6) against defendant Christopher Stampolis, a school board member and father of a student, based on multiple campus encounters in Aug–Sept 2014.
Key incidents: Aug 27 confrontation where Stampolis gestured, stepped close to Harris, raised his voice and made hand gestures (one witness described them as gun-like); surveillance video showed pacing and gestures but not full context; witnesses (vice principal Masur, security Allen, Officer Fekete) corroborated Harris’s fear.
Additional encounters on Aug 28, Sept 2, Sept 4, Sept 19, and Sept 23 involved tense exchanges, refusal to comply with campus restrictions, issuance of a 14-day stay-away order, and administrative/police follow-up.
Harris presented medical evidence of acute anxiety from the incidents; Stampolis filed and lost (dismissed) a harassment claim against Harris and appealed the district stay-away order.
Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Stampolis made a credible threat of violence (Aug 27) and that his conduct constituted harassment causing substantial emotional distress; it issued a one-year injunction with campus proximity limitations.
The injunction expired but was later renewed; the Court of Appeal held the appeal not moot and affirmed the trial court’s ruling on substantial-evidence review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficient evidence supported a finding of a "credible threat of violence" on Aug 27	Harris: gestures, proximity, raised voice, and witnesses showed a knowing, willful conduct placing a reasonable person in fear	Stampolis: video shows him walking away, gestures were nonthreatening (clapping), and he only sought to pick up his son	Court: Substantial evidence supports credible threat—gestures, closeness, voice, and witness testimony justified the finding; credibility resolved for Harris
Whether harassment was likely to recur such that injunctive relief was proper	Harris: repeated campus encounters, prior complaints, continued access to school via son made recurrence probable	Stampolis: single-incident arguments and legitimate purpose (picking up son) mean injunction unnecessary	Court: Implied finding of likelihood to recur supported—ongoing interactions and other incidents show continued risk
Whether Harris suffered substantial emotional distress caused by harassment	Harris: medical diagnosis (acute anxiety) and testimony of fear	Stampolis: contested nature of events undermines claimed distress	Court: Evidence (medical visit and witnesses) supports substantial emotional distress
Whether court needed to find a "course of conduct" or other ground besides credible threat	Harris: credible threat alone suffices under §527.6(b)(3)	Stampolis: argued incidents were protected/insufficient to show course of conduct	Court: No need to decide course-of-conduct issue because credible threat + likelihood + distress suffice for injunction

Key Cases Cited

City of Monterey v. Carnshimba, 215 Cal.App.4th 1068 (Cal. Ct. App.) (mootness principles where temporal relief expires)
Cooper v. Bettinger, 242 Cal.App.4th 77 (Cal. Ct. App.) (renewal of restraining orders and standards)
Russell v. Douvan, 112 Cal.App.4th 399 (Cal. Ct. App.) (single act of violence insufficient alone to mandate injunction absent likelihood of repetition)
Scripps Health v. Marin, 72 Cal.App.4th 324 (Cal. Ct. App.) (evaluating probability of future unlawful acts in light of surrounding circumstances)
R.D. v. P.M., 202 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. Ct. App.) (substantial-evidence review and consideration of conduct that may not itself be harassment)
City of San Jose v. Garbett, 190 Cal.App.4th 526 (Cal. Ct. App.) (threats can be conveyed by conduct as well as words)
Schild v. Rubin, 232 Cal.App.3d 755 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard of appellate review for harassment injunctions)