Hawkins v. Delgado, 308 Neb. 301

Hawkins and Delgado, both USAF first lieutenants, dated on/off from Sept 2017 to Dec 2019; Hawkins ended the relationship Dec 28, 2019.
Delgado repeatedly threatened suicide and sought to contact Hawkins after she asked him to stop; communications included calls, texts, emails, a video call showing a noose, and messages such as “Time has come. Karma” and “It won’t stop till it all burns.”
Hawkins attempted to block Delgado; he used an old email account and a burner phone to continue contact; she obtained a military no-contact order (effective Jan 31, 2020) which Delgado violated.
Hawkins sought and received an ex parte harassment protection order on Feb 3, 2020; Delgado requested a show-cause hearing and later retained counsel who appeared on his behalf at the hearing while Delgado remained in Arizona.
At the May 7, 2020 hearing Delgado’s counsel orally requested an SCRA stay and suggested the military no-contact order made the harassment order unnecessary; the court found Delgado’s absence did not constitute nonappearance, denied an SCRA stay for failure to comply with statutory requirements, and continued the harassment protection order until Feb 3, 2021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hawkins)	Defendant's Argument (Delgado)	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence to continue the ex parte harassment protection order	Delgado’s messages, suicide threats, repeated contacts after blocking and a military no-contact order show a course of conduct that seriously terrified/intimidated Hawkins	Messages were not threats of physical violence and contacts were too infrequent to constitute a “course of conduct” under the statute	Affirmed — objective reading of messages could be threatening or intimidating; repeated contacts over a month satisfied “course of conduct” and supported continuation
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a stay under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)	Hawkins opposed a stay; argued Delgado failed to follow SCRA/formal procedures and had counsel present	Delgado claimed military service and travel restrictions prevented appearance and orally requested an SCRA stay (and telephonic/video appearance)	Affirmed — Delgado failed to file the written SCRA application/commanding-officer letter; oral request insufficient and no proof of prejudice or compliance with statutory requirements

Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124, 858 N.W.2d 841 (Neb. 2015) (discusses injunction standard and show-cause hearing treatment)
Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673, 919 N.W.2d 841 (Neb. 2018) (treats protection show-cause hearings as contested factual proceedings)
In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239, 728 N.W.2d 606 (Neb. 2007) (statutory construction; frequency of acts not dispositive for "course of conduct")
Carmicheal v. Rollins, 280 Neb. 59, 783 N.W.2d 763 (Neb. 2010) (denial of SCRA stay not error despite compliance where record showed ability to appear)
Rickert v. Rickert, 27 Neb. App. 533, 934 N.W.2d 384 (Neb. App. 2019) (explains SCRA filing requirements for a stay)
Schuessler v. Benchmark Mktg. & Consulting, 243 Neb. 425, 500 N.W.2d 529 (Neb. 1993) (courts’ authority re: stays and procedure)
Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb. App. 89, 837 N.W.2d 563 (Neb. App. 2013) (distinguished on facts regarding sufficiency of harassment evidence)
Yancer v. Kaufman, 22 Neb. App. 320, 854 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. App. 2014) (distinguished on procedural/record grounds)