Laserinko v. Gerhardt, 154 So. 3d 520

Gerhardt petitioned for a final injunction for protection against stalking after a series of contacts from Theodore (Teddy) Laserinko over ~4 months.
The parties had a prior friendship and began spending time together after reconnecting; Gerhardt was a divorced mother with a minor son.
Laserinko sent multiple emails, occasional gifts (Valentine’s cards, a small teddy, chocolates, a CD), attended a concert where Gerhardt was present but did not approach her, and sent a lengthy April 22 email that Gerhardt found troubling. Gerhardt testified some additional messages existed but could not produce them at trial.
Gerhardt emailed Laserinko after the April 22 letter, directing him to stop contacting her and warning she would call law enforcement if he did not. She then filed for a stalking injunction; a nonjury trial followed.
The trial court entered a final injunction; Laserinko appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence to support stalking under Florida law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the contacts constituted stalking under Fla. Stat. § 784.048 (requires willful, malicious, repeated acts causing substantial emotional distress)	Gerhardt argued the cumulative contacts (emails, gifts, attempted contacts, and the April 22 letter) formed a course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress and supported an injunction	Laserinko argued most contacts were innocuous or isolated, and the evidence was insufficient to prove the required repeated harassing acts causing substantial emotional distress	The court held only the April 22 email would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress, but there was no competent substantial evidence of a second qualifying incident; therefore the injunction was unsupported and reversed
Whether courts apply an objective (reasonable person) or subjective standard to substantial emotional distress	Gerhardt relied on her testimony of distress from the conduct	Laserinko argued the standard is objective and his other contacts would not meet it	The court reaffirmed the reasonable person (objective) standard for substantial emotional distress and applied it in finding insufficiency of other contacts

Lukacs v. Luton, 982 So.2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (stalking requires proof of repeated acts)
Touhey v. Seda, 183 So.3d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (each stalking incident must be proven by competent, substantial evidence)
Goudy v. Duquette, 112 So.3d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (evidentiary standard for injunctions against stalking)
Brilhart v. Brilhart ex rel. S.L.B., 116 So.3d 617 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (appellate review focuses on legal sufficiency rather than evidentiary weight)
Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1981) (legal sufficiency standard for appellate review)
Slack v. Kling, 959 So.2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (use of reasonable person standard for substantial emotional distress)
Ravitch v. Whelan, 851 So.2d 271 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (discussion of objective standard for emotional distress)