Hawkins v. Delgado, 953 N.W.2d 765

Hawkins and Delgado, both USAF first lieutenants, dated intermittently from Sept 2017–Dec 2019; Hawkins ended the relationship on Dec 28, 2019.
Delgado repeatedly threatened suicide and to harm Hawkins’ career; after the breakup he called, texted, emailed, and video-called Hawkins while she was deployed—once with a noose around his neck and an ultimatum.
Between Dec 29, 2019 and late Jan 2020 Delgado contacted Hawkins every few days (including via an old email and a "burner" phone) and sent messages such as "Time has come. Karma" and "It won't stop till it all burns. That I promise."
Hawkins obtained a military no-contact order (reciprocal) Jan 31, 2020, but Delgado continued to contact her and threatened to come to Omaha.
Hawkins sought and received an ex parte harassment protection order Feb 3, 2020; Delgado sought a show-cause hearing and, orally at the hearing, requested an SCRA stay while appearing only through counsel; the court continued the ex parte order to Feb 3, 2021 and denied the SCRA stay.

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, video call with noose, and repeated contacts created objective fear and a course of conduct warranting continuation	Messages were not threats of physical violence and were too infrequent to constitute a "course of conduct" under § 28-311.02(2)	Affirmed. Court held messages could be read as threatening/intimidating and the repeated contacts over ~1 month satisfied the statutory "course of conduct" requirement
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Delgado a stay under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)	Hawkins opposed; argued Delgado had counsel and did not establish statutory requirements for a stay	Delgado argued military duty prevented personal appearance and requested an SCRA stay orally at the hearing	Affirmed. Court found Delgado failed to meet SCRA’s written and commanding-officer-letter requirements; oral request and counsel appearance insufficient to obtain stay

Richards v. McClure, 290 Neb. 124, 858 N.W.2d 841 (Neb. 2015) (addresses review standard and related principles for protection-order proceedings)
Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673, 919 N.W.2d 841 (Neb. 2018) (treats show-cause protection hearings as contested factual hearings and likens protection orders to injunctions)
In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239, 728 N.W.2d 606 (Neb. 2007) (discusses objective construction of harassment/stalking statutes and course-of-conduct analysis)
Schuessler v. Benchmark Mktg. & Consulting, 243 Neb. 425, 500 N.W.2d 529 (Neb. 1993) (recognizes courts’ inherent authority over civil procedure and stays)
Carmicheal v. Rollins, 280 Neb. 59, 783 N.W.2d 763 (Neb. 2010) (upheld denial of SCRA stay where record showed appearance despite claimed unavailability)
Rickert v. Rickert, 27 Neb. App. 533, 934 N.W.2d 384 (Neb. App. 2019) (denial of SCRA stay where statutory prerequisites were not met)
Glantz v. Daniel, 21 Neb. App. 89, 837 N.W.2d 563 (Neb. App. 2013) (precedent on sufficiency of harassment evidence)
Yancer v. Kaufman, 22 Neb. App. 320, 854 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. App. 2014) (precedent on sufficiency of harassment evidence)